The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices

bluediamond started the topic in

Sunday, 25 Jul 2021 at 1:26pm

Uni assignment i did a few years ago. This is my take on things. I'm sure this will ruffle many feathers. I hope so.
Love Blue Diamond x

Introduction – Compensatory Justice
Disparities between the standards of living of humans on this planet have long been a part of our history on this planet. From the wealthy nations of the West to the developing and undeveloped nations on this globe, the diversity in the quality of life when viewed from a moral standpoint are without a doubt grossly unfair.
In this paper I will look at why historic injustices do require some form of reparation. I take a strong stance that we are more obliged to solve current injustices than to provide reparation for every act of injustice in the past. In doing this I will first investigate the historic injustice of the Aboriginal people of Australia and I will look at the argument that they are entitled to some form of reparation and why.
I will incoroporate some interesting views from Jeremy Waldron, Robert Nozick and others which will help me slowly build to my conclusion that reparation should be in the form of Non Indigenous Australians surrendering some of our priveleges as a form of reparation.

Historic Injustices to Indigenous Australians:
Australia the continent was well inhabited for many years long before white settlement. It is commonly known that in 1788 Australia was colonised as a country under the rule of the British Empire, with total contempt for the fact that it was already inhabited by a native indigenous race of people.
The way the original inhabitants have been treated, including forced assimilation, execution, stolen families and not even allowed to be recognised as citizens for a large part of white Australia’s history are also well known facts. (Poole, 1999,pp114-142)
There exists now a situation where there is a large divide between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal Australian’s that can be traced back to the moment Australia was invaded by English settlers and the brutal and unfair treatment that has followed.
So at this point now, in 2013 what is the just and fair way to make amends for past actions?
I would argue that a moderate to large amount of reparation is overdue for this nation of people, the Aboriginal people. But there are many challenges to this view point especially that of how much reparation, and what sort of compensation.

Past injustices or present suffering?
One of the questions raised in an issue like this is whether it is better to provide compensation or reparation for past deeds, which have already been done in a previous generation and cannot be changed, or whether it is better to now provide assistance to those who are suffering in their current situations and consider that as a form of moral duty.
To understand this we need to delve a little deeper into this issue and hear some differing viewpoints.
Firstly we need to understand what the best way to provide reparation. How do we judge what is the best way of giving back and how much? Jeremy Waldron states “The historic record has a fragility that consists, …in the sheer contingency of what happened in the past” (Waldron,1992,p5 )
This is saying that we can’t trace every single injustice back to the original act therefore reparation for every act would be almost impossible because it would ultimately be guess work.
In this statement he has an objection from Robert Nozick who believes it is in fact possible to address this problem by “changing the present so that it resembles how the past would have looked had the injustice not taken place” (McKenzie, 2013)
This would be a way to ultimately provide maximum reparation, but is it the correct approach? I believe this is a fairly radical approach, although it does have some merits in the fact it would be working in a positive way for indigenous people, I don’t think it is entirely the right way to deal with these issues but it is on the right track.
Waldron argues that it is based on too many unknowns. “The status of counterfactual reasoning about the exercising of human reasoning of human freedom is unclear”(Waldron 1993,p10)
Which leaves the question somewhat open about the sort of reparation that is required, but provides one clear answer to the key question. Both agree that yes, reparation to some extent is required. But how much and in what form?
Another philosopher who leans more towards Waldron’s views is Kymlicka. He is somewhat more straightforward in his assessment that property rights in particular for Aboriginals would create “massive unfairness” and also he maintains the argument “Aboriginal rights must be grounded in concerns about equality and contemporary disadvantage. (McKenzie, 2013) I agree with both these views but I don’t think they provide any active solutions.

The Solution?
So if its not handing back all of Australia’s land to the original inhabitants that is the most appropriate way to deal with past injustices, then what is?
I look at the current country I grew up in, as a white Australian. I ask myself why I never had Aboriginal friends growing up, no understanding of Aboriginal culture and why my basic understanding of Indigenous Australians is mostly 200 years old. I look at our flag, a symbol of a nation that stole a country from its original inhabitants, with no recognition of the Indigenous people at all on it. I see that Australia considered Indigenous people as less than people until only 40 years ago and I see the way that Indigenous Australians live a completely separate life to the way of life I know as an Australian. I see that the only indigenous politician I am aware of is a former Olympian and it is because of this fact of her sporting status that I know this. I see no collective power or representation of Indigenous Australians and I see non Indigenous Australians,( a culture built on a history of stealing a land and mistreating its people) still taking, taking as much out of this land as they can, with little to no regard of sharing or giving to the original inhabitants. I see a government that says lots of words about ‘closing the gap’ and bringing the living standards of non- indigenous and indigenous Australians closer together, but apart from nice words, there is no conviction, no follow through, just assimilation , and all that still remains are injustices.
As stated by Sparrow, “Continuity gives rise to responsibility on part of present generations of Australians for our history”.(McKenzie,2013). Although deeds happened in the past beyond our control, what we do now to either ignore, or rectify these issues will reflect on us in history. So if we choose to do nothing, we are contributing to the history of the mistreatment of non- indigenous Australians. And this is simply unacceptable in my opinion.

Conclusion
So what is fair? I believe that the way forward is a surrendering of some of our privileges as non- indigenous Australians. The simple fact is it was morally wrong without a doubt what has happened in the past. And it is also morally wrong without a doubt to ignore these facts and not offer some form of reparation in the present. But how much?
I think that going back to Robert Nozick’s argument is a start. I think Nozick is wrong to make the present resemble the past in every aspect. But I do think that it would be reasonable to restore some aspects of the way things should be. The things that happened in the past were out of our control and we can’t go back to changing the way things were. But we could change the way things are.
For some examples. Why not give at least 50% of political power to indigenous people? It surely would be a fair thing to do considering this is their country. Media control. 50 percent. Industry. Realestate. The list goes on. Why do we not acknowledge the indigenous people on our flag, or better still use their flag? Why is Australia still a part of the Commonwealth when it serves little purpose to any of us and serves as a constant reminder to Indigenous Australians that they are still controlled by the original invaders. These to me are fairly simple reparations that would have minimal impact on Australia as a whole. Perhaps, it would alter the way we live but I think it is our responsibility, morally to forfeit some of our privileges for the greater good. Basically a little bit goes a long way.
In closing, it is a fact that a huge injustice occurred to the Indigenous population and suffering continues to this day. There is no easy solution to such a burden of pain. I believe the only solutions are for the non- Indigenous population to take responsibility and sacrifice our own way of life to bring about an overall equality. Sacrifice is not an easy word. But it all comes down to right and wrong. We are in a position to give, in this current generation. What are we so scared to lose, that was never ours in the first place??

Bibliography
McKenzie,C.”Prof” (2013), Lecture, Historic Injustices and Indigenous Rights, Macquarie University
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28

References
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28

southernraw Wednesday, 28 Aug 2024 at 4:27pm

Thanks @udo. Good read.

AlfredWallace Wednesday, 28 Aug 2024 at 7:17pm

sameaswas wrote:
AlfredWallace wrote:
No respectable discussion from this end. either.

I simply don’t understand this reiteration of the same old ,,,,,,, blah,,,,, blah,,,,,,blah, find a job , stop drinking alcohol etc.

Look inside yourself and understand why these people are in this predicament.

Stop looking at it through rose coloured glasses. Drives me nuts.

But if you want to write reams of dialogue, go ahead, I’ll bore you with info and get RSI in my right arm and an elevated retina. Couldn’t be bothered really. AW

Alfred i am not saying that, get a job etc.

We have had 40+yrs of the tent city activists running the show and it's worse than ever.

The 2 colleges being built for fnp in remote communities brilliant idea there was 3 planned and given approval by the previous govt and labor canned one when they took over...?

The biggest employer in the cntry is govt (or second?) and that includes n.g.o's .the last thing these ppl want is an audit on monies allocated to all things related to the fnp.

And how many swellnutters or their partners are on this fnp gravy train? and claim the high moral ground?

And me a troll? talk about the pot calling the kettle black...oops!

Southern i want change and improvement, out with the old "activists" and some new.

Sameaswas. Hi mate . Hope ya well.

Firstly. Who said I was specifically talking to you ?

Were you suggesting that I was trolling you ?

If so, I wasn’t and I don’t troll anyone.

Define what a troll is and I’ll make a determination or self judgement as to whether I fulfill that category.

Again I wasn’t trolling you.
I wasn’t, I’m just worn out defending the plight of FNP in this country.

Reminder to all, they are just people , like you and I.

But we know our society treats them differently and often poorly.

And, what’s so bad about the Tent Embassy, this is the kind of shit they have to do to attempt to get some action.

Australians of all kinds, probably including some Swellnetters have their fingers in the gravy train glue, very common in this nation and it bleeds funds that end up not in the desired recipients hands.
Take a look at the NDIS for example, it’s been rorted and drained of gazillions of dollars by fake or fraudulent start up caring businesses.

The big question is where is the governance for these programs. It’s piss weak.

I’m extremely worried about what’s going to happen to all these kids in Alice Springs soon, the way that newly elected upstart was talking is farcical, sounded like it’s gonna be ‘round em up cowboys type stuff’, you know what I mean.

I’m interested in solutions, not discussing problems.

Have you got any ideas, I’d be interested in hearing them. All the best. AW

sameaswas Friday, 30 Aug 2024 at 10:37am

AlfredWallace wrote:
sameaswas wrote:
AlfredWallace wrote:
No respectable discussion from this end. either.

I simply don’t understand this reiteration of the same old ,,,,,,, blah,,,,, blah,,,,,,blah, find a job , stop drinking alcohol etc.

Look inside yourself and understand why these people are in this predicament.

Stop looking at it through rose coloured glasses. Drives me nuts.

But if you want to write reams of dialogue, go ahead, I’ll bore you with info and get RSI in my right arm and an elevated retina. Couldn’t be bothered really. AW

Alfred i am not saying that, get a job etc.

We have had 40+yrs of the tent city activists running the show and it's worse than ever.

The 2 colleges being built for fnp in remote communities brilliant idea there was 3 planned and given approval by the previous govt and labor canned one when they took over...?

The biggest employer in the cntry is govt (or second?) and that includes n.g.o's .the last thing these ppl want is an audit on monies allocated to all things related to the fnp.

And how many swellnutters or their partners are on this fnp gravy train? and claim the high moral ground?

And me a troll? talk about the pot calling the kettle black...oops!

Southern i want change and improvement, out with the old "activists" and some new.

Sameaswas. Hi mate . Hope ya well.

Firstly. Who said I was specifically talking to you ?

Were you suggesting that I was trolling you ?

If so, I wasn’t and I don’t troll anyone.

Define what a troll is and I’ll make a determination or self judgement as to whether I fulfill that category.

Again I wasn’t trolling you.
I wasn’t, I’m just worn out defending the plight of FNP in this country.

Reminder to all, they are just people , like you and I.

But we know our society treats them differently and often poorly.

And, what’s so bad about the Tent Embassy, this is the kind of shit they have to do to attempt to get some action.

Australians of all kinds, probably including some Swellnetters have their fingers in the gravy train glue, very common in this nation and it bleeds funds that end up not in the desired recipients hands.
Take a look at the NDIS for example, it’s been rorted and drained of gazillions of dollars by fake or fraudulent start up caring businesses.

The big question is where is the governance for these programs. It’s piss weak.

I’m extremely worried about what’s going to happen to all these kids in Alice Springs soon, the way that newly elected upstart was talking is farcical, sounded like it’s gonna be ‘round em up cowboys type stuff’, you know what I mean.

I’m interested in solutions, not discussing problems.

Have you got any ideas, I’d be interested in hearing them. All the best. AW

Thanks supa and alfie, this is a very emotive subject and it has divided society.
The secrecy of isolated communities has to end, the refusal to acknowledge the antisocial behaviour being fostered by the parents of the kids eg " go out and steal from whitey cos the white man stole from us" ...true.

The propaganda blameing whitey for all of their probs, the new one is houseing conditions in remote communities, no mention they trash the houses, mate had maintenance contract up s.a. way he did 3 towns about 6mnths work then told to go back and start again...all total trashed again!

The ndis? Ha what a scandal! Dill shorten has for 18mnths or more gone on about overchargeing, rorts and fraud et all and NO ONE has been charged prosecuted and all assets seized and returned to govt...why?

Wokeness is why i.m.o.

sameaswas Friday, 30 Aug 2024 at 10:56am

Wokeness :- "refers to a contempory ideology rooted in critical theory, race, and identity politics, often infused with elements of marxism, which emphasises a hierarchial view of victimhood and collective identity.
This ideology tends to prioritize group identity over individual agency, leading to an overemphasis on identity categories such as race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Critics argue that " wokeness" fosters a culture of victimhood, promotes intolerance towards differing viewpoints ( commonly known as "cancel culture") and undermines the principles of meritocracy.
Furthermore it is often associated with policies and practices that prioritize diversity over qualifications, potentially leading to reverse discrimination and the devaluation of excellence and achievement."
Anon

Jelly Flater Friday, 30 Aug 2024 at 11:54am

…well, ummm ‘blameing’ & ummm ‘houseing’ ;);)

- “antisocial behaviour” (putting ppl in chains, forcibly taking children etc)
- “cancel culture” (denying ppl the right to speak their language / outlawing their ability to participate in traditional cultural practices)

^ The contemporary ‘woke’ ideology at the time (white australia policy) of prioritising the eradication of an assumed ‘uncivilised’ identity of the original inhabitants of this country, through an over emphasis on race (‘savages’) by discrimination and devaluation of traditional indigenous excellence and achievement ;)

… nothin quite like a few perpetually cherry picked stereotypes to enhance one’s ability to go around ‘blameing’ first nations ppl for ‘their’ problems ;);)

- might be time for whitey to consider shutting the fark up and instead attempting to understand that they don’t have, and never had, the self appointed right to enforce whatever they see fit when it comes to fnp. It’s our track record and policies that have divided society, and our rorts and fraud that continue to influence and shape a ‘culture of victimhood’.

…no one has ever been charged or prosecuted or held accountable for the indigenous genocide and stolen generations etc, nor have any fair or equitable reparations been provided for the “assets seized”, government implemented “cancel culture” or land and resources that were forcibly and intentionally stolen.

- sorry doesn’t cut it ;)

https://m.

Jelly Flater Friday, 30 Aug 2024 at 12:01pm

https://m.

&pp=ygUNa2luZyBzdGluZ3JheQ%3D%3D

southernraw Friday, 30 Aug 2024 at 4:04pm

Jelly Flater wrote:
…well, ummm ‘blameing’ & ummm ‘houseing’ ;);)

- “antisocial behaviour” (putting ppl in chains, forcibly taking children etc)
- “cancel culture” (denying ppl the right to speak their language / outlawing their ability to participate in traditional cultural practices)

^ The contemporary ‘woke’ ideology at the time (white australia policy) of prioritising the eradication of an assumed ‘uncivilised’ identity of the original inhabitants of this country, through an over emphasis on race (‘savages’) by discrimination and devaluation of traditional indigenous excellence and achievement ;)

… nothin quite like a few perpetually cherry picked stereotypes to enhance one’s ability to go around ‘blameing’ first nations ppl for ‘their’ problems ;);)

- might be time for whitey to consider shutting the fark up and instead attempting to understand that they don’t have, and never had, the self appointed right to enforce whatever they see fit when it comes to fnp. It’s our track record and policies that have divided society, and our rorts and fraud that continue to influence and shape a ‘culture of victimhood’.

…no one has ever been charged or prosecuted or held accountable for the indigenous genocide and stolen generations etc, nor have any fair or equitable reparations been provided for the “assets seized”, government implemented “cancel culture” or land and resources that were forcibly and intentionally stolen.

- sorry doesn’t cut it ;)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MArsmQ9tGN0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NAJViuC7Ppk

Beautifully said @JF but obviously this guys just here to stir shit on the subject. Hasn't even made mention of any part of my considered replies to him above. Just wants to be a victim,...the irony being he's blaming indigenous crew of the same thing.
A real waste of time and space this one.

udo Saturday, 31 Aug 2024 at 6:32pm

https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/sydney-metropolitan-aboriginal...

I focus Saturday, 31 Aug 2024 at 9:44pm

sameaswas wrote:
Thanks supa and alfie, this is a very emotive subject and it has divided society.
The secrecy of isolated communities has to end, the refusal to acknowledge the antisocial behaviour being fostered by the parents of the kids eg " go out and steal from whitey cos the white man stole from us" ...true.

Nah, mostly family disfunction if you ever had any experience and you would also know locking kids up means that with recidivism rates at around 90% guaranteed career criminals who have more kids, more dysfunction and on it goes, costs an absolute motzza.

Jacinda will fix it.... not.

southernraw Saturday, 31 Aug 2024 at 10:04pm

Spot on @ifocus. There are fixes....but when you mention them here, there, anywhere, ..as i did above and many have in the past....they just spin off into the night, never to be seen again. To fix would be to acknowledge. To acknowledge would be to surrender. To surrender would be to give. To give would be against the imperialistic DNA. That is the hard truth. That's what needs to be addressed.
The preference is division and submission...black and white...grey matter the key ingredient missing.
It's amazing how out of touch people in this country are with this country.

southernraw Saturday, 31 Aug 2024 at 10:10pm

cue....'but we give them money'....3...2.....1....

sameaswas Sunday, 1 Sep 2024 at 9:34am

Gee fellas, typical, to be expected.

I thought truth telling was a key part of fnp activists agenda?
Whats wrong with posting facts that u don't want to acknowledge or discuss?

When linda burney went to alice with p.m. and was shown the hospital i.c.u. with 6 d.v. (or was it 9?) all aborigine and 2 (3?) required 7/24 care for rest of their lives after recovery and she went back there just b4 her retirement and no mention by her or msm of how those poor women were doing and was there anymore dv in icu?
Shame on msm for ignoreing this travesty of our society.

Allso the medical staff told linda that all of icu beds were full bcoz of dv and anyone needing icu would have to go adelaide.

You can ignore our concerns and insult all u want.

sameaswas Sunday, 1 Sep 2024 at 9:46am

According to the fnp's logic i should see a lawyer and sue baltic states for what the vikeings did to my ancestors and my herediatry "deupotrons disease" my genes inherited from a invadeing colonist vikeing?

I'm cool with the romans cos they gave us toilets and pizza,.

basesix Sunday, 1 Sep 2024 at 9:53am

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/sundayextra/tytmm-thomas-mayo/104...

Jelly Flater Sunday, 1 Sep 2024 at 10:47am

- haha

https://m.

… ‘ignoreing’
… ‘invadeing’
… ‘vikeing’

& ummm ‘herediatry’ ;)

https://m.

- keep up the lobotomy logic haha
…sameaswas (and always will be) a good for nothing piece of shit ;);)

Jelly Flater Sunday, 1 Sep 2024 at 10:48am

;)

https://m.

&pp=ygUWdHJ1Z2FuaW5pIG1pZG5pZ2h0IG9pbA%3D%3D

https://m.

southernraw Sunday, 1 Sep 2024 at 5:59pm

@sameaswas. I applaud you for your shit stirring because that's all it can be.

Jelly Flater Sunday, 1 Sep 2024 at 9:40pm

https://m.

southernraw Sunday, 1 Sep 2024 at 10:57pm

Bless ya JF. You make negotiating this thread 10x easier. Thankyou.

AlfredWallace Monday, 2 Sep 2024 at 8:32pm

southernraw wrote:
@sameaswas. I applaud you for your shit stirring because that's all it can be.

Hi mate.

I wonder what the next edition of the same, same, same, same as it ever was will be.
It’s exhausting waiting for the coin to drop into the machine so the needle can just keep running in the same groove of the one track. Yawn, AW

Jelly Flater Monday, 2 Sep 2024 at 8:48pm

@AW, hoping u’ve been getting something resembling the wotd pic on your recent missions ;)

southernraw Tuesday, 3 Sep 2024 at 12:34am

AW im convinced its purely trolling for reactions. No substance to it. Im embarassef that i felll for it and took.the bait. Pretty weird way to live though. Anyway, each to their own
Im sure he has his reasons.

seeds Tuesday, 3 Sep 2024 at 11:35pm

Anti social behaviour of the parents
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/conversations/brenda-matthews-sto...

basesix Wednesday, 4 Sep 2024 at 10:48am

here's a chip for the seagulls, a quote from the 'Tiser:
.

{ Few schools can boast their own island. But Scotch College is relinquishing access to the small, private island that has hosted its school camps for almost 60 years following a Native Title determination last year.

The school will cease using Goose Island, called Mayibarrdu in Narungga language, at the end of 2024 – three years before its licence to access the site was due to expire.

Scotch College principal Trent Driver said he was “profoundly disappointed” that the school’s younger students would not be able to use the island in future years, saying it had allowed generations of teenagers to experience sailing, kayaking, wildlife studies, land regeneration, snorkelling through shipwrecks and swimming with sea lions.

Local Indigenous leader Doug Milera said the decision meant the Narungga people would once again be able to reconnect spiritually to the island. }

haha, discuss..

southernraw Wednesday, 4 Sep 2024 at 3:46pm

My heart bleeds for the students of one of Adelaide's most elite private schools.

basesix Wednesday, 4 Sep 2024 at 3:49pm

haha, correct answer @southern!
(plenny of hard to reach islands,
if they wanna be explorers and deepen their pockets
and possibly do some groundbreaking and
important research, gofundme old-scholarzzz!)

truebluebasher Wednesday, 4 Sep 2024 at 3:49pm

NT ALP leader Selena Uibo becomes first Indigenous 'woman' to lead a major Oz Political Party
https://nit.com.au/03-09-2024/13493/breaking-selena-uibo-becomes-first-i...

Secret men's business
Aden Ridgeway was Dem's VP 2001
Warren Mundine was ALP Prez 2006-07
https://deadlyvibe.com.au/2009/02/aden-ridgeway-and-warren-mundine-leadi...

Sisters...Keepin' the Fire Burning...

Crew dedicate Surf Sista's latest Ripple Effect .....*~~~~^~~~~/( ~~~~/C......WOTD... /(C'..[ selena )

southernraw Wednesday, 4 Sep 2024 at 4:15pm

basesix wrote:
haha, correct answer @southern!
(plenny of hard to reach islands,
if they wanna be explorers and deepen their pockets
and possibly do some groundbreaking and
important research, gofundme old-scholarzzz!)

haha. Yes, they could do a mini reenactment of early explorers...sail a tall ship up the Coorong resplendent in their school blazers. Top shelf learning! Always.

southernraw Wednesday, 4 Sep 2024 at 4:16pm

truebluebasher wrote:
NT ALP leader Selena Uibo becomes first Indigenous 'woman' to lead a major Oz Political Party
https://nit.com.au/03-09-2024/13493/breaking-selena-uibo-becomes-first-i...

Secret men's business
Aden Ridgeway was Dem's VP 2001
Warren Mundine was ALP Prez 2006-07
https://deadlyvibe.com.au/2009/02/aden-ridgeway-and-warren-mundine-leadi...

Sisters...Keepin' the Fire Burning...

Crew dedicate Surf Sista's latest Ripple Effect .....*~~~~^~~~~/( ~~~~/C......WOTD... /(C'..[ selena )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_zHISnudUo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MsFfMwMWLo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75sgIeEdWps

Ripper TBB. Listened to a bit of her opening speech yesterday. She spoke well.

sameaswas Monday, 9 Sep 2024 at 8:01pm

sameaswas wrote:
Wokeness :- "refers to a contempory ideology rooted in critical theory, race, and identity politics, often infused with elements of marxism, which emphasises a hierarchial view of victimhood and collective identity.
This ideology tends to prioritize group identity over individual agency, leading to an overemphasis on identity categories such as race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Critics argue that " wokeness" fosters a culture of victimhood, promotes intolerance towards differing viewpoints ( commonly known as "cancel culture") and undermines the principles of meritocracy.
Furthermore it is often associated with policies and practices that prioritize diversity over qualifications, potentially leading to reverse discrimination and the devaluation of excellence and achievement."
Anon

Later on that night on dateline (?) Patricia kavalas abc host asked the audience and panel if they knew what woke was.
Non of them knew but the somali(?) child refugee who became lawyer said it was ppl who have empathy for minorities etc.

So uni degrees all of em and don't know woke.

Allso regards your insults (cancel culture) everything i post is factual.

sameaswas Monday, 9 Sep 2024 at 8:10pm

Look fellas this is not a facebook love in.

Anyone who critiques the fnp beaurocracy is abused, you never admit to it's failure, unaccountability and reverse racism.

AlfredWallace Monday, 9 Sep 2024 at 8:09pm

sameaswas wrote:
Jelly Flater wrote:
@AW, hoping u’ve been getting something resembling the wotd pic on your recent missions ;)

Sameaswas. Hi fella . Your opinion, that’s good, we’ve all got one. . Good stuff. AW

sameaswas Monday, 9 Sep 2024 at 8:14pm

AlfredWallace wrote:
sameaswas wrote:
Jelly Flater wrote:
@AW, hoping u’ve been getting something resembling the wotd pic on your recent missions ;)

Sameaswas. Hi fella . Your opinion, that’s good, we’ve all got one. . Good stuff. AW

That post was a mistake by me i must of tapped the guote button by mistake, but gee your reply was nice.

sameaswas Monday, 9 Sep 2024 at 8:22pm

Jelly there was no " conventional woke" at the time of colonisation it is a new concept or description of a leftist view.

Jelly Flater Monday, 9 Sep 2024 at 8:32pm

… ‘beaurocracy’ (factual?) hahaha
- ‘abused’ (slavery?)

A history lesson sameaswas (and some light on aussie bureaucracy) :

“Between the 1860s and the 1970s, Aboriginal people of all ages were taken from their homes and sent to work on cattle and sheep properties all across Australia. Several such schemes were run by colonial and state governments, theoretically to protect Aboriginal Australians from mistreatment.
And mistreatment was rife. Queensland government files and personal reports show that from the 1880s, and for at least 40 years, there were no limits on how many hours Aboriginal people worked, how hard their labour was, how bad their treatment or the provision of food and living quarters.

Reverend John Gribble, a keen observer of injustice in the 1880s, noted (my emphasis):

"I have seen numbers of natives brought in from the interior, and some of them had never before seen the face of a white man, and they were compelled to put their hand to a pen and make a cross which they never could understand, and having done this they were then slaves for life, or as long as they were good for pearl diving." [4]

Minimum conditions, introduced in 1919, were wildly ignored in the absence of any inspections. [5]

[Shelter for many Aboriginal workers was] worse than they would provide for their pet horse, motor-car or prize cattle.
— Chief Protector of Aborigines, Queensland, 1921 [5]
Low pay or no pay
The definition of slavery mentions 'low pay', and this was very true for Aboriginal slaves.

In the early 1900s in Queensland, despite regarded as more reliable than superior white stock riders, Aboriginal workers received only about 3% of the white wage rate. [5]

At the same time in Western Australia, recommendations for a minimum 5 shilling monthly wage were successfully opposed by pastoralists, leading one parliamentarian to describe the system as "another name for slavery". [6]

From 1919 the government claimed pastoral workers would get 66% of the white wage, but records show that in 1949 workers got only 31%. [3] In fact, Aboriginal people would never get the 66%. Every year between 1941 and 1956 the government sold Aboriginal labour for less than that. [3]

Whatever little money Aboriginal workers were able to save governments were keen to get their hands on. Evidence shows it intercepted federally-paid maternity allowances from 1912 and child endowments from 1941, and paid only a fraction through to the mothers. [3]Tens of millions of dollars were taken out of the Queensland trusts and never returned to Aboriginal workers. The 'stolen wages' is now a national problem governments try to sit out. Claimants need a lot of patience or die waiting, and compensation has been insufficient, bordering on insulting for a lifetime of work.

"When I got the first $4,000 [of a total of $7,000] I was told I had to sign a paper that I would not take the government to court and I signed because I thought it was better than nothing,' says Felicity Holt, a 77-year-old claimant from Queensland. [3] "I found out I couldn't get the money unless I signed the document." Stolen wages is, however, not just about the money. In the 2006 Stolen Wages report numerous statements by Aboriginal people described the conditions in which they had lived and worked in terms evoking the notion of slavery. In fact, until at least the 1950s, if not later, these conditions satisfy the legal definition of ‘slavery’ existing under Australian and international law at the time.[7]

[Slavery is] an elephant in the drawing-room of civilised debate.
— Stephen Gray [7]
While Aboriginal people have no difficulty thinking of their past treatment as slavery, many non-Aboriginal people – including judges and lawyers – find the notion of slavery in an Australian context confronting. [7] Worse, some prime ministers of Australia believe that there was no slavery in Australia. [8]

A look into history might bring clarity.

Aboriginal slavery disguised as 'Protectionism'
Between the 1860s and the 1970s, Aboriginal people of all ages were taken from their homes and sent to work on cattle and sheep properties, in kitchens, homesteads, shearing sheds or on the land, all across Australia.

Several such schemes were run by colonial and state governments, theoretically to protect Aboriginal people from mistreatment. Like station owners, the laws gave the governments an extraordinary level of control over every aspect of Aboriginal people's lives, including their personal finances, where they lived, where they worked and how much they were paid.

But Historians Dr Rosalind Kidd and Dr Thalia Anthony have documented how Aboriginal people of all ages were forcibly sent to work [6], sometimes far from their homes, in often horrific conditions. [5]

Laws in Western Australia in 1874 allowed Aboriginal children to be sent to work from the age of 12, and an even lower age from 1886. [3] They endured 16-hour days, floggings and forced removal from families.[25] Boys were generally sent to work on pastoral properties, while girls worked as domestic servants. They were exposed to both physical and sexual abuse.

Aboriginal children of mixed descent were sent to missions all over Australia where they were often forced to labour, and educated as domestic servants or labourers for non-Aboriginal people who frequently abused them in many ways.”

Source: Australia has a history of Aboriginal slavery - Creative Spirits, retrieved from https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/australia-has...

AlfredWallace Monday, 9 Sep 2024 at 8:49pm

sameaswas wrote:
Look fellas this is not a facebook love in.

Anyone who critiques the fnp beaurocracy is abused, you never admit to it's failure, unaccountability and reverse racism.

Sameaswas . We have different opinions , that’s fine.

I’d like to think we could dig deep into our Hippocampus and try to understand how FNP ended up in this dire situation in the first place.
Down trodden since settlement.

FNP beaurocracy is no different to any other beaurocracy in this country, only difference is it’s so easy to report or highlight FNP’s plight, it gets folk talking for all the wrong reasons.
Don’t you see it. How did we get to this point in time ?

Im stopping now, you’ve got your view, i/we have ours. We will ended going around in circles.

It is ok to have a different view on this matter. You are valiant and steadfast with your take on it, that’s fine. All the best. AW

seeds Tuesday, 10 Sep 2024 at 11:17pm

?si=wHJ2RBWo4DCEvrS9

sameaswas Wednesday, 11 Sep 2024 at 12:21pm

Hiya fellas... google ...Madison King_13

She's an aboriginal who's videos are being cancelled by the e commisioner and labor.

You"ll hate her.

stunet Wednesday, 11 Sep 2024 at 1:28pm

sameaswas wrote:
Hiya fellas... google ...Madison King_13

She's an aboriginal who's videos are being cancelled by the e commisioner and labor.

You"ll hate her.

Hope you donated to her fund. Her views on 911 certainly changed my mind.

udo Wednesday, 11 Sep 2024 at 3:07pm

Wow

?si=Y48b2Ptj36Bk2j3e

southernraw Thursday, 12 Sep 2024 at 2:27pm

This is a good read. Have copied and pasted the whole chapter as i couldn't get a hold of anything that wasn't behind an academic access wall.
-Balancing Individualism and Collectivism-
in an Australian Aboriginal Context
Keith Miller
Abstract Epochs have occurred throughout the history of the earth. A move from
one epoch to the next can be considered to occur when there is a major transition
which has a geological impact on all of life. A transition from the Holocene to the
Anthropocene is now considered to have occurred in about the year 1800 with the
Industrial Revolution. Dramatic changes to global conditions have occurred in a
little over 200 years since then, with the consequent impact on the environment and
all living things. Along with a geological change, a cultural transition has occurred.
An individualistically oriented style of thinking has come to prominence with an
objectification and exploitation of the environment. Yet, among Indigenous cul-
tures, this change has not taken place. They retain a collectivist style of thinking and
behavior and a deep respect for the land and all it contains. One of the values we
can gain as participants in the Anthropocene is a recognition of these different types
of knowledge existing in cohabitation, a comfortableness with an individualistic
and relational identity occurring alongside each other. How much more valuable for
this epoch to become an inclusive era when the collectivist perspectives from
Indigenous cultures are appreciated alongside individualistic perspectives of
developed nations?
Introduction
In A Short History of Nearly Everything (2005), Bill Bryson provides a potted and
entertaining version of the history of the universe as perceived by humanity. He
refers to the mystery of the cosmos, the vastness and intricacy of the universe as we
understand it. Bryson mentions the “dangerous planet” and the development of “life
itself”. He provides a quick glimpse of the wonders of this earth and its changing
nature through geological time. And he touches briefly on what are now considered
the different eras or epochs.
K. Miller (&)
School of Social and Policy Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
J. McIntyre-Mills et al. (eds.), Balancing Individualism and Collectivism,
Contemporary Systems Thinking, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58014-2_10
199
As indicated by Steffen et al. (2011a), consideration of the defining of a new
geological epoch takes place over time. There has never been a neat transition
between what are now considered different ages in the earth’s development. It is
only in retrospect that scientists can look back and determine the different eras of
time. Eugene Stoermer began using the term “Anthropocene” in the 1980s fol-
lowing interaction around this theme with Paul Crutzen (Crutzen and Stoermer
2000). As recently as 1992, Revkin referred to “this new post-Holocene period” as
the “Anthropocene” (Revkin 1992, p. 55; Steffen et al. 2011a, p. 843). The com-
mencement of the Industrial Revolution around the late 1700s (or 1800, if one
wants to be precise, for example Steffen et al. 2011b, p. 741) can now be considered
the commencement of what one day may be determined officially as the
Anthropocene, some form of geological step-on from the Holocene. In a similar
way, the previous transformation from Pleistocene to Holocene is now placed at the
end of the Ice Age, about 12,000 years ago—but it may not have been so clear cut
to a resident at the time.
These transition periods mark a transformation so profound that all of life is
affected. With the dramatic changes to global conditions which have occurred in a
little over 200 years since 1800, and its impact on the environment and all living
things, it makes sense to recognise that a change in epochs has occurred. The
transition from Holocene to Anthropocene marks the commencement of the “hu-
man imprint on the global environment” (Romm 2015, p. 2) which “rivals some of
the great forces of Nature in its impact on the functioning of the Earth’s system”
(Steffen et al. 2011a, p. 843).
Cultural Transition
It is important to recognize that these scientific determinations occur in retrospect.
As we look back, we realize that a major transformation has occurred. All of us
have a history. There is a geological footprint left behind in the material universe
which is noticeable. But there is also a cultural footprint left behind by our
ancestors. When we consider an Indigenous group, such as the Australian
Aboriginal communities, their cultural history continues in the same developmental
way as the different geological time periods. Their dreaming is more than a his-
torically delineated period of myth or legend. The dreaming continues into the
present day. What then is their place in the Anthropocene and how have they
transitioned from the Holocene? And what does this say about other cultural
groups? Would it be true to say that a cultural characteristic of the Holocene period
was a collectivist way of thinking among human population groups? What of the
transition of these groups into the Anthropocene?
There is a generally held understanding that a more individualistically oriented
style of thinking has developed among Western and economically developed cul-
tures in what may now be considered the Anthropocene. It is considered that this
style of thinking can be traced back to the Renaissance era in Europe and the
200 K. Miller
development of a more rational perspective which culminated in the Industrial
Revolution. Masses of people flooded into metropolitan areas, resulting in the
enormous dislocation of family structures and the breakdown of collectivist tradi-
tions. In contrast to this, among economically developing cultures, a more com-
munity based and collectivist style of thinking is still evident. This appears to
remain true among Indigenous cultures and this is certainly the case among
Aboriginal Australians.
Among economically developed and individualistically oriented cultures, there
is also a disconnection with the land. There is a sense that the land and its material
provisions are there to be exploited and raped rather than to be nurtured. Only
beginning in the 1960 and 1970s did there even commence an awareness in
Western nations that the raping of the land and its contents could have detrimental
impacts on the continuation of life (Nordhaus and Shellenberger 2007). Even today,
many in the developed and individualistic nations continue with the same mindset
that the land and its contents are for the benefit of humanity so the current envi-
ronmental concern on the part of many is one of sustainability merely in order that
the planet will remain in existence for the sake of humankind—rather than for the
sake of the environment itself. This is so different to Indigenous ways of thinking.
Romm (2015, p. 1) discusses the Indigenous styles of collectively oriented
knowing. Her understanding is that “selves are understood as ‘selves-in-relation’ to
one another and to all living and non-living things, as part of the web of life” (2015,
p. 1). This style of relational thinking and knowing has become foreign to the vast
majority of members of individualistically oriented cultures. They have lost an
understanding of what it means to be a citizen, with reciprocal rights and respon-
sibilities to those with whom they share this planet (Rawls 1971, p. 214).
Indigenous groups, on the other hand, have a strong awareness of community and
the recognition of involvement with other participants in this community (Miller
2013).
For members of an individualistically oriented society, the new epoch of
Anthropocene has indeed become a new era where the accoutrements of daily life
are considered as chattels and there is a disjunction between the individual and the
other often competing members of society around that person. Compare this with
members of a collectively oriented culture who see themselves as at one with other
human beings but more importantly with the essence of life.
Aboriginal Relationality
As mentioned before, the dreaming for Aboriginal Australians is present-day. They
interpret life in terms of the dreaming and this includes the relational context in
which they live. So, when they continue to live in community, Aboriginal
Australians understand their lives in terms of their particular world view. Their
transition from the Holocene into the Anthropocene has not meant a severing from
collectivism into individualism nor a break from relationality and connection into
10 Balancing Individualism and Collectivism in an Australian … 201
objectifying their surroundings. Never was this more evident to me than when
participating in groups with Aboriginal community members who were discussing
aspects of loss and grief.
Example: Seasons for Healing Project
Let me first provide a brief description of the Seasons for Healing Project and then I
will draw out the implications in terms of what I understand to be a collective
understanding of community and culture.
The Seasons for Healing Program is an educational loss and grief program, “to
support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults” (Grief 2012, p. 2). Two
members of a community are selected and trained as “companions”, their role being
to facilitate a small group of between four and seven people within that community.
These co-companions lead the group through a program of four sessions, each
session lasting approximately two and a half hours. Through participating in a range
of activities, companions enable group members to appreciate the impact of change,
loss, and grief on their lives and to gain the language to better articulate experiences
of change, loss, and grief. Over a period of four sessions, participants “acknowledge
the reality of their loss”, “explore the range of feelings and reactions that come with
loss”, “adjust to their changed circumstances” and “explore the choices that enable
participants to let go and move forward” (Grief 2012, pp. 24, 46, 68, 88). Each
session incorporates time for discussion, listening, contemplation, activities, and
opportunities for writing and self-expression.
Through interaction, the construction of a group understanding of change, loss
and grief was developed. The group setting meant that participants shared their
views and, by this means, constructed a group understanding of how they could
interpret and safely express their new understanding. “Focus groups are used to
gather data which is generated in a discussion between focus group members with
the help of the focus group facilitator” (Matthews and Ross 2010, p. 235). The very
nature of focus group interaction is relational. This interaction between participants
in the program enabled a richer understanding for each participant of the issues
which were both discussed verbally and communicated in other ways. The group
context allowed participants to provide their perspectives and ideas on change, loss
and grief and these built upon what others were saying. The role of the researcher
was that of “walking with” the participants on their journey of discovery rather than
imposing an outside expert perspective as to how they should understand change,
loss, and grief. Hence, realities of both participants and researchers were “socially
and experientially based” (Guba and Lincoln 1994, p. 110).
Listening to participants describe their understanding and share their experiences
was an enriching time for me as an outside researcher. Grief holds a significant
place in the lives of Aboriginal people. Any form of loss a person experiences can
lead to grief, and this was recognized by participants in the focus groups.
202 K. Miller
In Aboriginal culture, lots of people die. Sometimes we bury one next month, sometimes
ten in a month. Grief takes over our whole lives (B, northern Adelaide).
There are other kinds of loss - identity, land, belongings, where we fit in with all this (M,
southern Adelaide).
I came to recognize that grief is not an unfortunate addition to life, because it is
often viewed from a western perspective. For Indigenous people, it is an intimate
and enduring part of who they are. From my perspective as a non-Indigenous
person, this spoke to me of relational identity, so different from the individualism of
western cultures.
“Yarning” is an important part of Aboriginal culture. It refers to sharing one’s
life story or personal journey. It was recognized as a means of individuals sharing
parts of who they were for the benefit of the group. So this was incorporated more
fully into the program.
When you are sharing a story - you need more time to yarn. Obviously there are things
people want to say… We are story tellers (P, northern Adelaide).
Several of the groups commented on the need to keep the group together
throughout the program. This was linked to the recognition of the importance of
yarning and the relational nature of engagement. A relational way of thinking and
knowing leads to a “communication without words” within the groups which
indicated an unspoken understanding and awareness of other participants. It was my
observation that Indigenous focus groups operated at a different level to
non-Indigenous groups and was a reflection of the collectivist way of thinking.
Example: Dadirri
A distinct aspect of collectivist awareness among Aboriginal communities is
dadirri. Atkinson refers to dadirri as “a deep contemplative process of listening to
one another in reciprocal relationships” (2000, p. 1). She speaks of
consciousness-raising
The relationship between the inner life—deeply ingrained cultural traditions—
and the outer conditions of the social and natural environment that has helped shape
the inner world, becomes explicit (2000, pp. 4–5).
And this is done in a community setting.
A big part of dadirri is listening…Listening invites responsibility to get the story
– the information – right and to be in right relationship. However, listening over
extended periods of time also brings the knowledge that the story changes over time
as healing occurs when people experience being listened to and having their pain
acknowledged (Atkinson 2000, p. 8).
According to Atkinson,
Dadirri… at its deepest level is the search for understanding and meaning. It is listening
and learning with more than the ear, but also from the heart…Dadirri is the process of
listening, reflecting, observing the feelings and actions, reflecting and learning, and in the
10 Balancing Individualism and Collectivism in an Australian … 203
cyclic process, re-listening at deeper and deeper levels of understanding and
knowledge-building (2000, pp. 8–9).
The process of listening and learning with the ear but also from the heart is
important to capture. And then reflecting and re-listening, using more than one’s ear
but also one’s spirit. What appears to be important is to remove one’s judgmental
and negative or suspicious attitude. Rather, one should sit quietly, observe and
listen, and then reflect. Ungunmerr speaks of dadirri as “inner deep listening and
quiet, still awareness” (1995 p. 179). Dadirri is relational and collectivist. One
needs to move from the individualistic to a relational perspective to be able to
appreciate dadirri.
Balancing Individual and Collective Interests
One of the concerns which comes with an anthropocentric way of thinking is the
hegemonic promulgation of individualism. Just as humankind has had a profound
“impact on the functioning of the Earth’s system” (Steffen et al. 2011a, p. 843), so
the powerful voices of western nations have had a profound impact on Earth’s
cultural understanding. Ritzer suggested that a McDonaldization has taken place, a
homogenisation of cultural perspectives. As Ritzer commented, bureaucracy in the
western world means that people have become “dehumanized”, “rational systems
are dehumanizing” (2004, pp. 27, 134). Indeed, Pieterse suggested that one view of
cultural difference is that “global interconnectedness leads to increasing cultural
convergence” (2009, p. 4). There has been a “worldwide homogenization of
societies” (2009, p. 51) and a “homogenization of consumption patterns” (Ritzer
1993, p. 154). This has tended to bury Indigenous perspectives of collectivism
under the weight of individualism and the objectification of the relationship
between humankind and its surroundings. In contrast to this, McIntyre-Mills refers
to “the benefits of balancing individual and collective interests through sociocul-
tural solidarity and collective action for this generation of life and the next” (2014,
p. 46). It would appear that, as a generalization, Indigenous societies have largely
retained their relational cultures and their collectivist perspectives in the balance of
life. It would also appear that, as a generalization, western societies have developed
an objective culture and an individualistic perspective which diminishes the life
chances of the current and future generations. On current balance, the individual-
istic perspective far outweighs the collectivist perspective. If we are indeed to
develop a “social contract which protects citizens”, and particularly “those who are
voiceless”, then “the balance between individual and collective concerns needs to
be redressed” (McIntyre-Mills 2014, p. 48–49).
Within the way of thinking of Aboriginal Australians, there continues a strong
connection to land and community, and this is even more the case as one travels
from metropolitan areas to more rural and remote communities. An attitude per-
vades these communities that they share this land with all its inhabitants, including
204 K. Miller
animals, rocks, plants and trees, water and earth. The land is regarded as precious
and there is a spiritual connection to the land. So the collectivist attitude among
Aboriginal Australians differs markedly from the attitude of non-Indigenous
Australians.
Thus a balance needs to be struck between an individualistic perspective and a
relational perspective. Cultural difference means that one needs to be reflexive in
one’s understanding and interpretation of the one culture as interpreted by another
(Kovach 2009). What are “the methods of knowledge production” within cultures
and how do “particular knowledges achieve legitimacy and authority at the expense
of other knowledge” (Nakata 2007, p. 195)?
Converging Two Divergent Views
During the Anthropocene, we have witnessed the development of a hegemonic
western perspective imposed on a variety of cultures and a homogenisation of the
individualistic and objective perspective brought by western imperialism. This has
begun to change in recent decades. There has come a recognition of the validity of
world views other than a rational western worldview. Indigenous authors are pro-
moting the recognition of their worldviews, not to replace the western perspective
but to sit alongside with equal credibility (Tuhiwai Smith 2012).
To redress the balance between individual and collective concerns, there needs
to be a recognition of the equal value of these different world views. One type of
knowledge is not wrong and the other right, they are not mutually exclusive. Nakata
uses an interpretive approach to speak of the cultural interface, which recognizes
that Indigenous knowledge is “positioned within a contested terrain of competing
knowledge relations” (2007, p. 199). What is important to Aboriginal people is not
categorizing the different approaches used to gain knowledge. What is important is
the recognition of the value of different types of knowledge. According to Nakata
(2010), Indigenous knowledge and western scientific knowledge are different but
both are important. The end result of these types of knowledge is important and this
is that the interests of Indigenous people are preserved. Someone with an individual
approach to knowledge should not approach an Aboriginal community with a
collectivist approach and disregard that community’s worldview with the under-
standing that her/his approach to research cannot be challenged (Hollinsworth
2012). The days when this occurred should be long past. But it may still be the case
that some westerners come with an assumed/unchallenged knowledge base and
impose this on others, including people from Aboriginal communities. Researchers
need to critically assess their own worldview before inflicting themselves on others.
The focus has changed from “knowing about” to “learning from” the community
with whom one deals (Hollinsworth 2012, p. 5).
Entering the research sphere from an Indigenous paradigm, Martin speaks
positively of the relational nature of Indigenous research, and says, “I am often
confounded by the levels of trust that have been established, and I attribute this to
10 Balancing Individualism and Collectivism in an Australian … 205
using a research framework of which relational ontology, epistemology and
methodology are a necessary condition” (2003, p. 16). It is also important that a
researcher recognizes participants as people who relate in a relational way.
According to Gunaratnam, “Relationality (refers) to the epistemological break with
thinking of ‘race’ and ethnicity as unitary, hermetically sealed, homogeneous cat-
egories of difference” (2003, p. 20). This means that individuals within a people
group are not identical. What this also should mean is that respect is accorded to
participants and that a researcher from outside the community genuinely hears what
the community is saying and the different perspectives among community mem-
bers. When a researcher works with a group of people from a different cultural or
subcultural background, including an Indigenous background, the researcher should
not assume knowledge and should be comfortable with difference.
Romm expresses an important truth: “The (re)credentializing of Indigenous
knowledge systems and styles of knowing does not imply that all ‘knowledge’ (and
ways of acting) as proffered within Indigenous systems has to be accepted” (2015,
p. 10). As McIntyre-Mills comments, it is only as research “strives to foster and
manage diverse forms of knowledge”, that we can hope to “address complex
socio-environmental challenges” (2014, p. 8).
Researchers have traditionally been powerful people of privilege and belonged
to “a given race”. They have belonged to the dominant rather than the subservient
culture. As Tuhiwai Smith states: “(Researchers) have the power to distort, to
overlook, to make invisible, to exaggerate and to draw conclusions based…on
assumptions, hidden value judgements, and often downright misunderstandings”
(2012, p. 178). So there is a responsibility on the part of researchers to recognize the
power imbalance and consequently to accord a rightful sense of power to those
being interviewed. As Tuhiwai Smith also says, these researchers are “in receipt of
privileged information” from participants (2012, p. 178). Too often, researchers
have “come into Indigenous communities to collect their stories to disappear
without a word coming back or any benefit returning to the community”
(Brydon-Miller et al. 2011, p. 390). In terms of Indigenous communities, Tuhiwai
Smith makes a strong comment: “The way in which research is implicated in the
worst excesses of colonialism remains a powerful remembered history for many of
the world’s colonized peoples” (1999, p. 1).
To redress the balance between an individualistic and a collectivist cultural
perspective, between a western world view and an Indigenous world view, what is
important is to recognize the validity of both. Indigenous groups are not seeking
compensation but equal recognition to enable a convergence of these two divergent
views. In this way, the Anthropocene will be characterized by a mutual respect and
a harmonious recognition of the value of different world views so that the interests
of Indigenous peoples are preserved.
206 K. Miller
Conclusion
Epochs have occurred throughout the history of the earth. A move from one epoch
to the next can be considered to occur when there is a major transition which has a
geological impact on all of life. The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene
is regarded as having taken place about 12,000 years ago. A transition from the
Holocene to what has been designated the Anthropocene is now considered to have
occurred with the commencement of the Industrial Revolution and is conveniently
placed at the turn of the nineteenth-century BCE. Dramatic changes to global
conditions have occurred in a little over 200 years since 1800, with the consequent
impact on the environment and all living things.
Along with a geological change, a cultural transition has occurred, particularly
among western or developed nations. An individualistically oriented style of
thinking has come to prominence with an objectification and exploitation of the
environment. Yet, among Indigenous cultures, such a profound change has not
taken place. They retain a collectivist style of thinking and behavior and a deep
respect for the land and all it contains.
One of the values we can gain as participants in the Anthropocene is a recog-
nition of the different types of knowledge existing in cohabitation, a comfortable-
ness with an individualistic and relational identity occurring alongside each other.
During the early stages of the Anthropocene, there was a hegemonic bombardment
from early industrializing nations which attempted to consume and even ridicule the
cultural perspectives of developing nations. How much more valuable for this
epoch to become an inclusive era when the collectivist perspectives from
Indigenous cultures are appreciated alongside individualistic perspectives of
developed nations?

AlfredWallace Thursday, 12 Sep 2024 at 7:03pm

southernraw wrote:
This is a good read. Have copied and pasted the whole chapter as i couldn't get a hold of anything that wasn't behind an academic access wall.
-Balancing Individualism and Collectivism-
in an Australian Aboriginal Context
Keith Miller
Abstract Epochs have occurred throughout the history of the earth. A move from
one epoch to the next can be considered to occur when there is a major transition
which has a geological impact on all of life. A transition from the Holocene to the
Anthropocene is now considered to have occurred in about the year 1800 with the
Industrial Revolution. Dramatic changes to global conditions have occurred in a
little over 200 years since then, with the consequent impact on the environment and
all living things. Along with a geological change, a cultural transition has occurred.
An individualistically oriented style of thinking has come to prominence with an
objectification and exploitation of the environment. Yet, among Indigenous cul-
tures, this change has not taken place. They retain a collectivist style of thinking and
behavior and a deep respect for the land and all it contains. One of the values we
can gain as participants in the Anthropocene is a recognition of these different types
of knowledge existing in cohabitation, a comfortableness with an individualistic
and relational identity occurring alongside each other. How much more valuable for
this epoch to become an inclusive era when the collectivist perspectives from
Indigenous cultures are appreciated alongside individualistic perspectives of
developed nations?
Introduction
In A Short History of Nearly Everything (2005), Bill Bryson provides a potted and
entertaining version of the history of the universe as perceived by humanity. He
refers to the mystery of the cosmos, the vastness and intricacy of the universe as we
understand it. Bryson mentions the “dangerous planet” and the development of “life
itself”. He provides a quick glimpse of the wonders of this earth and its changing
nature through geological time. And he touches briefly on what are now considered
the different eras or epochs.
K. Miller (&)
School of Social and Policy Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
J. McIntyre-Mills et al. (eds.), Balancing Individualism and Collectivism,
Contemporary Systems Thinking, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58014-2_10
199
As indicated by Steffen et al. (2011a), consideration of the defining of a new
geological epoch takes place over time. There has never been a neat transition
between what are now considered different ages in the earth’s development. It is
only in retrospect that scientists can look back and determine the different eras of
time. Eugene Stoermer began using the term “Anthropocene” in the 1980s fol-
lowing interaction around this theme with Paul Crutzen (Crutzen and Stoermer
2000). As recently as 1992, Revkin referred to “this new post-Holocene period” as
the “Anthropocene” (Revkin 1992, p. 55; Steffen et al. 2011a, p. 843). The com-
mencement of the Industrial Revolution around the late 1700s (or 1800, if one
wants to be precise, for example Steffen et al. 2011b, p. 741) can now be considered
the commencement of what one day may be determined officially as the
Anthropocene, some form of geological step-on from the Holocene. In a similar
way, the previous transformation from Pleistocene to Holocene is now placed at the
end of the Ice Age, about 12,000 years ago—but it may not have been so clear cut
to a resident at the time.
These transition periods mark a transformation so profound that all of life is
affected. With the dramatic changes to global conditions which have occurred in a
little over 200 years since 1800, and its impact on the environment and all living
things, it makes sense to recognise that a change in epochs has occurred. The
transition from Holocene to Anthropocene marks the commencement of the “hu-
man imprint on the global environment” (Romm 2015, p. 2) which “rivals some of
the great forces of Nature in its impact on the functioning of the Earth’s system”
(Steffen et al. 2011a, p. 843).
Cultural Transition
It is important to recognize that these scientific determinations occur in retrospect.
As we look back, we realize that a major transformation has occurred. All of us
have a history. There is a geological footprint left behind in the material universe
which is noticeable. But there is also a cultural footprint left behind by our
ancestors. When we consider an Indigenous group, such as the Australian
Aboriginal communities, their cultural history continues in the same developmental
way as the different geological time periods. Their dreaming is more than a his-
torically delineated period of myth or legend. The dreaming continues into the
present day. What then is their place in the Anthropocene and how have they
transitioned from the Holocene? And what does this say about other cultural
groups? Would it be true to say that a cultural characteristic of the Holocene period
was a collectivist way of thinking among human population groups? What of the
transition of these groups into the Anthropocene?
There is a generally held understanding that a more individualistically oriented
style of thinking has developed among Western and economically developed cul-
tures in what may now be considered the Anthropocene. It is considered that this
style of thinking can be traced back to the Renaissance era in Europe and the
200 K. Miller
development of a more rational perspective which culminated in the Industrial
Revolution. Masses of people flooded into metropolitan areas, resulting in the
enormous dislocation of family structures and the breakdown of collectivist tradi-
tions. In contrast to this, among economically developing cultures, a more com-
munity based and collectivist style of thinking is still evident. This appears to
remain true among Indigenous cultures and this is certainly the case among
Aboriginal Australians.
Among economically developed and individualistically oriented cultures, there
is also a disconnection with the land. There is a sense that the land and its material
provisions are there to be exploited and raped rather than to be nurtured. Only
beginning in the 1960 and 1970s did there even commence an awareness in
Western nations that the raping of the land and its contents could have detrimental
impacts on the continuation of life (Nordhaus and Shellenberger 2007). Even today,
many in the developed and individualistic nations continue with the same mindset
that the land and its contents are for the benefit of humanity so the current envi-
ronmental concern on the part of many is one of sustainability merely in order that
the planet will remain in existence for the sake of humankind—rather than for the
sake of the environment itself. This is so different to Indigenous ways of thinking.
Romm (2015, p. 1) discusses the Indigenous styles of collectively oriented
knowing. Her understanding is that “selves are understood as ‘selves-in-relation’ to
one another and to all living and non-living things, as part of the web of life” (2015,
p. 1). This style of relational thinking and knowing has become foreign to the vast
majority of members of individualistically oriented cultures. They have lost an
understanding of what it means to be a citizen, with reciprocal rights and respon-
sibilities to those with whom they share this planet (Rawls 1971, p. 214).
Indigenous groups, on the other hand, have a strong awareness of community and
the recognition of involvement with other participants in this community (Miller
2013).
For members of an individualistically oriented society, the new epoch of
Anthropocene has indeed become a new era where the accoutrements of daily life
are considered as chattels and there is a disjunction between the individual and the
other often competing members of society around that person. Compare this with
members of a collectively oriented culture who see themselves as at one with other
human beings but more importantly with the essence of life.
Aboriginal Relationality
As mentioned before, the dreaming for Aboriginal Australians is present-day. They
interpret life in terms of the dreaming and this includes the relational context in
which they live. So, when they continue to live in community, Aboriginal
Australians understand their lives in terms of their particular world view. Their
transition from the Holocene into the Anthropocene has not meant a severing from
collectivism into individualism nor a break from relationality and connection into
10 Balancing Individualism and Collectivism in an Australian … 201
objectifying their surroundings. Never was this more evident to me than when
participating in groups with Aboriginal community members who were discussing
aspects of loss and grief.
Example: Seasons for Healing Project
Let me first provide a brief description of the Seasons for Healing Project and then I
will draw out the implications in terms of what I understand to be a collective
understanding of community and culture.
The Seasons for Healing Program is an educational loss and grief program, “to
support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults” (Grief 2012, p. 2). Two
members of a community are selected and trained as “companions”, their role being
to facilitate a small group of between four and seven people within that community.
These co-companions lead the group through a program of four sessions, each
session lasting approximately two and a half hours. Through participating in a range
of activities, companions enable group members to appreciate the impact of change,
loss, and grief on their lives and to gain the language to better articulate experiences
of change, loss, and grief. Over a period of four sessions, participants “acknowledge
the reality of their loss”, “explore the range of feelings and reactions that come with
loss”, “adjust to their changed circumstances” and “explore the choices that enable
participants to let go and move forward” (Grief 2012, pp. 24, 46, 68, 88). Each
session incorporates time for discussion, listening, contemplation, activities, and
opportunities for writing and self-expression.
Through interaction, the construction of a group understanding of change, loss
and grief was developed. The group setting meant that participants shared their
views and, by this means, constructed a group understanding of how they could
interpret and safely express their new understanding. “Focus groups are used to
gather data which is generated in a discussion between focus group members with
the help of the focus group facilitator” (Matthews and Ross 2010, p. 235). The very
nature of focus group interaction is relational. This interaction between participants
in the program enabled a richer understanding for each participant of the issues
which were both discussed verbally and communicated in other ways. The group
context allowed participants to provide their perspectives and ideas on change, loss
and grief and these built upon what others were saying. The role of the researcher
was that of “walking with” the participants on their journey of discovery rather than
imposing an outside expert perspective as to how they should understand change,
loss, and grief. Hence, realities of both participants and researchers were “socially
and experientially based” (Guba and Lincoln 1994, p. 110).
Listening to participants describe their understanding and share their experiences
was an enriching time for me as an outside researcher. Grief holds a significant
place in the lives of Aboriginal people. Any form of loss a person experiences can
lead to grief, and this was recognized by participants in the focus groups.
202 K. Miller
In Aboriginal culture, lots of people die. Sometimes we bury one next month, sometimes
ten in a month. Grief takes over our whole lives (B, northern Adelaide).
There are other kinds of loss - identity, land, belongings, where we fit in with all this (M,
southern Adelaide).
I came to recognize that grief is not an unfortunate addition to life, because it is
often viewed from a western perspective. For Indigenous people, it is an intimate
and enduring part of who they are. From my perspective as a non-Indigenous
person, this spoke to me of relational identity, so different from the individualism of
western cultures.
“Yarning” is an important part of Aboriginal culture. It refers to sharing one’s
life story or personal journey. It was recognized as a means of individuals sharing
parts of who they were for the benefit of the group. So this was incorporated more
fully into the program.
When you are sharing a story - you need more time to yarn. Obviously there are things
people want to say… We are story tellers (P, northern Adelaide).
Several of the groups commented on the need to keep the group together
throughout the program. This was linked to the recognition of the importance of
yarning and the relational nature of engagement. A relational way of thinking and
knowing leads to a “communication without words” within the groups which
indicated an unspoken understanding and awareness of other participants. It was my
observation that Indigenous focus groups operated at a different level to
non-Indigenous groups and was a reflection of the collectivist way of thinking.
Example: Dadirri
A distinct aspect of collectivist awareness among Aboriginal communities is
dadirri. Atkinson refers to dadirri as “a deep contemplative process of listening to
one another in reciprocal relationships” (2000, p. 1). She speaks of
consciousness-raising
The relationship between the inner life—deeply ingrained cultural traditions—
and the outer conditions of the social and natural environment that has helped shape
the inner world, becomes explicit (2000, pp. 4–5).
And this is done in a community setting.
A big part of dadirri is listening…Listening invites responsibility to get the story
– the information – right and to be in right relationship. However, listening over
extended periods of time also brings the knowledge that the story changes over time
as healing occurs when people experience being listened to and having their pain
acknowledged (Atkinson 2000, p. 8).
According to Atkinson,
Dadirri… at its deepest level is the search for understanding and meaning. It is listening
and learning with more than the ear, but also from the heart…Dadirri is the process of
listening, reflecting, observing the feelings and actions, reflecting and learning, and in the
10 Balancing Individualism and Collectivism in an Australian … 203
cyclic process, re-listening at deeper and deeper levels of understanding and
knowledge-building (2000, pp. 8–9).
The process of listening and learning with the ear but also from the heart is
important to capture. And then reflecting and re-listening, using more than one’s ear
but also one’s spirit. What appears to be important is to remove one’s judgmental
and negative or suspicious attitude. Rather, one should sit quietly, observe and
listen, and then reflect. Ungunmerr speaks of dadirri as “inner deep listening and
quiet, still awareness” (1995 p. 179). Dadirri is relational and collectivist. One
needs to move from the individualistic to a relational perspective to be able to
appreciate dadirri.
Balancing Individual and Collective Interests
One of the concerns which comes with an anthropocentric way of thinking is the
hegemonic promulgation of individualism. Just as humankind has had a profound
“impact on the functioning of the Earth’s system” (Steffen et al. 2011a, p. 843), so
the powerful voices of western nations have had a profound impact on Earth’s
cultural understanding. Ritzer suggested that a McDonaldization has taken place, a
homogenisation of cultural perspectives. As Ritzer commented, bureaucracy in the
western world means that people have become “dehumanized”, “rational systems
are dehumanizing” (2004, pp. 27, 134). Indeed, Pieterse suggested that one view of
cultural difference is that “global interconnectedness leads to increasing cultural
convergence” (2009, p. 4). There has been a “worldwide homogenization of
societies” (2009, p. 51) and a “homogenization of consumption patterns” (Ritzer
1993, p. 154). This has tended to bury Indigenous perspectives of collectivism
under the weight of individualism and the objectification of the relationship
between humankind and its surroundings. In contrast to this, McIntyre-Mills refers
to “the benefits of balancing individual and collective interests through sociocul-
tural solidarity and collective action for this generation of life and the next” (2014,
p. 46). It would appear that, as a generalization, Indigenous societies have largely
retained their relational cultures and their collectivist perspectives in the balance of
life. It would also appear that, as a generalization, western societies have developed
an objective culture and an individualistic perspective which diminishes the life
chances of the current and future generations. On current balance, the individual-
istic perspective far outweighs the collectivist perspective. If we are indeed to
develop a “social contract which protects citizens”, and particularly “those who are
voiceless”, then “the balance between individual and collective concerns needs to
be redressed” (McIntyre-Mills 2014, p. 48–49).
Within the way of thinking of Aboriginal Australians, there continues a strong
connection to land and community, and this is even more the case as one travels
from metropolitan areas to more rural and remote communities. An attitude per-
vades these communities that they share this land with all its inhabitants, including
204 K. Miller
animals, rocks, plants and trees, water and earth. The land is regarded as precious
and there is a spiritual connection to the land. So the collectivist attitude among
Aboriginal Australians differs markedly from the attitude of non-Indigenous
Australians.
Thus a balance needs to be struck between an individualistic perspective and a
relational perspective. Cultural difference means that one needs to be reflexive in
one’s understanding and interpretation of the one culture as interpreted by another
(Kovach 2009). What are “the methods of knowledge production” within cultures
and how do “particular knowledges achieve legitimacy and authority at the expense
of other knowledge” (Nakata 2007, p. 195)?
Converging Two Divergent Views
During the Anthropocene, we have witnessed the development of a hegemonic
western perspective imposed on a variety of cultures and a homogenisation of the
individualistic and objective perspective brought by western imperialism. This has
begun to change in recent decades. There has come a recognition of the validity of
world views other than a rational western worldview. Indigenous authors are pro-
moting the recognition of their worldviews, not to replace the western perspective
but to sit alongside with equal credibility (Tuhiwai Smith 2012).
To redress the balance between individual and collective concerns, there needs
to be a recognition of the equal value of these different world views. One type of
knowledge is not wrong and the other right, they are not mutually exclusive. Nakata
uses an interpretive approach to speak of the cultural interface, which recognizes
that Indigenous knowledge is “positioned within a contested terrain of competing
knowledge relations” (2007, p. 199). What is important to Aboriginal people is not
categorizing the different approaches used to gain knowledge. What is important is
the recognition of the value of different types of knowledge. According to Nakata
(2010), Indigenous knowledge and western scientific knowledge are different but
both are important. The end result of these types of knowledge is important and this
is that the interests of Indigenous people are preserved. Someone with an individual
approach to knowledge should not approach an Aboriginal community with a
collectivist approach and disregard that community’s worldview with the under-
standing that her/his approach to research cannot be challenged (Hollinsworth
2012). The days when this occurred should be long past. But it may still be the case
that some westerners come with an assumed/unchallenged knowledge base and
impose this on others, including people from Aboriginal communities. Researchers
need to critically assess their own worldview before inflicting themselves on others.
The focus has changed from “knowing about” to “learning from” the community
with whom one deals (Hollinsworth 2012, p. 5).
Entering the research sphere from an Indigenous paradigm, Martin speaks
positively of the relational nature of Indigenous research, and says, “I am often
confounded by the levels of trust that have been established, and I attribute this to
10 Balancing Individualism and Collectivism in an Australian … 205
using a research framework of which relational ontology, epistemology and
methodology are a necessary condition” (2003, p. 16). It is also important that a
researcher recognizes participants as people who relate in a relational way.
According to Gunaratnam, “Relationality (refers) to the epistemological break with
thinking of ‘race’ and ethnicity as unitary, hermetically sealed, homogeneous cat-
egories of difference” (2003, p. 20). This means that individuals within a people
group are not identical. What this also should mean is that respect is accorded to
participants and that a researcher from outside the community genuinely hears what
the community is saying and the different perspectives among community mem-
bers. When a researcher works with a group of people from a different cultural or
subcultural background, including an Indigenous background, the researcher should
not assume knowledge and should be comfortable with difference.
Romm expresses an important truth: “The (re)credentializing of Indigenous
knowledge systems and styles of knowing does not imply that all ‘knowledge’ (and
ways of acting) as proffered within Indigenous systems has to be accepted” (2015,
p. 10). As McIntyre-Mills comments, it is only as research “strives to foster and
manage diverse forms of knowledge”, that we can hope to “address complex
socio-environmental challenges” (2014, p. 8).
Researchers have traditionally been powerful people of privilege and belonged
to “a given race”. They have belonged to the dominant rather than the subservient
culture. As Tuhiwai Smith states: “(Researchers) have the power to distort, to
overlook, to make invisible, to exaggerate and to draw conclusions based…on
assumptions, hidden value judgements, and often downright misunderstandings”
(2012, p. 178). So there is a responsibility on the part of researchers to recognize the
power imbalance and consequently to accord a rightful sense of power to those
being interviewed. As Tuhiwai Smith also says, these researchers are “in receipt of
privileged information” from participants (2012, p. 178). Too often, researchers
have “come into Indigenous communities to collect their stories to disappear
without a word coming back or any benefit returning to the community”
(Brydon-Miller et al. 2011, p. 390). In terms of Indigenous communities, Tuhiwai
Smith makes a strong comment: “The way in which research is implicated in the
worst excesses of colonialism remains a powerful remembered history for many of
the world’s colonized peoples” (1999, p. 1).
To redress the balance between an individualistic and a collectivist cultural
perspective, between a western world view and an Indigenous world view, what is
important is to recognize the validity of both. Indigenous groups are not seeking
compensation but equal recognition to enable a convergence of these two divergent
views. In this way, the Anthropocene will be characterized by a mutual respect and
a harmonious recognition of the value of different world views so that the interests
of Indigenous peoples are preserved.
206 K. Miller
Conclusion
Epochs have occurred throughout the history of the earth. A move from one epoch
to the next can be considered to occur when there is a major transition which has a
geological impact on all of life. The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene
is regarded as having taken place about 12,000 years ago. A transition from the
Holocene to what has been designated the Anthropocene is now considered to have
occurred with the commencement of the Industrial Revolution and is conveniently
placed at the turn of the nineteenth-century BCE. Dramatic changes to global
conditions have occurred in a little over 200 years since 1800, with the consequent
impact on the environment and all living things.
Along with a geological change, a cultural transition has occurred, particularly
among western or developed nations. An individualistically oriented style of
thinking has come to prominence with an objectification and exploitation of the
environment. Yet, among Indigenous cultures, such a profound change has not
taken place. They retain a collectivist style of thinking and behavior and a deep
respect for the land and all it contains.
One of the values we can gain as participants in the Anthropocene is a recog-
nition of the different types of knowledge existing in cohabitation, a comfortable-
ness with an individualistic and relational identity occurring alongside each other.
During the early stages of the Anthropocene, there was a hegemonic bombardment
from early industrializing nations which attempted to consume and even ridicule the
cultural perspectives of developing nations. How much more valuable for this
epoch to become an inclusive era when the collectivist perspectives from
Indigenous cultures are appreciated alongside individualistic perspectives of
developed nations?

Southernraw. Hello and thanks, had a quick glance. Looks good.

I’ll read it on my flight tomorrow. All the best , Alfred is on the road again, just can’t wait to get on the road again. Toot, toot. AW

southernraw Thursday, 12 Sep 2024 at 10:16pm

Pleasure AW. One of the better papers i've read in some time and provides a bit of perspective and context of all influences in the topic.
Awesome mate. Safe and happy travels. Nothing better than getting out on the road again. Yew!

suprusty Friday, 13 Sep 2024 at 10:07am

Is a good read Southern,
"How much more valuable for this
epoch to become an inclusive era when the collectivist perspectives from
Indigenous cultures are appreciated alongside individualistic perspectives of
developed nations?"

Leaves me with many questions, main one being How do we get there? Does the book delve into any theories on achieving that or what things may look like after? I think that would be interesting too, especially considering we've just had the Voice knock back.

AndyM Friday, 13 Sep 2024 at 10:53am

stunet wrote:
southernraw wrote:
It's an easy way to degrade an argument when someone is showing genuine empathy for a minority group and is trying to push for constructive ideas that might benefit that group. Calling that person woke straight away undermines the goodwill that someone is showing and also kills off any momentum towards solutions. Lazy is an understatement. It's a sad sign of the times and it's the easiest way for individuals to withdraw and silence a discussion on a topic that they'll be loud and opinionated about but have little actual knowledge of.
And good to see the trash got taken out this morning. Good riddance.

True. But by the very same token, some people who reject typically woke answers, but do so from a sound intellectual position, rightfully bristle at being called racist or homophobe or transphobe or whatever.

The progressive left are often blithely ignorant of that.

As I get older I increasingly value collective responses over individual needs. The rise of the individual is closely traced to neoliberal values and the degradation of cultural values. We're a co-operative species, never in our history have individuals survived leave alone flourished, so we do away with co-operation and shared projects to our detriment.

Feels to me like some people want to keep fracturing culture and society into ever smaller constituent parts. On one hand people feel the need to do it to 'help minorities'. On the other hand it's just what Big Tech and the neolibs want us to do. Distil us down to individual units.

The other way? Treat all people fairly. Don't put anyone into a silo. If you believe in the nation state then let that be the lowest divisible category.

"The rise of the individual is closely traced to neoliberal values and the degradation of cultural values.

Feels to me like some people want to keep fracturing culture and society into ever smaller constituent parts. On one hand people feel the need to do it to 'help minorities'. On the other hand it's just what Big Tech and the neolibs want us to do. Distil us down to individual units.

The other way? Treat all people fairly. Don't put anyone into a silo. If you believe in the nation state then let that be the lowest divisible category."

Such an important cluster of concepts, and I'd say that they don't get talked about enough.
It doesn't help that neoliberalism is
a) a large topic that can be hard to define, and
b) hegemonic to the point that, to the casual listener, questioning it can seem like questioning our very existence and is therefore sacrilege.

But neoliberalism and its sibling hyper-liberalism can be seen to lie at the roots of most of our problems - economic (various financial crises, rapid increase in wealth inequality, price gouging, cost of living issues) political (undermining of democracy, disenfranchisement) and social (the breakdown of the family unit, epidemics of depression and loneliness, the conscious reduction of society to individual consumers).

And so, supercharged by modern technology, we have a fragmented landscape where faith in traditional institutions (including the nation state itself) has collapsed, leaving things ripe for exploitation by populists, corporations and various other spivs.
No wonder that a recent Lowy Institute survey found only about 40 per cent of Australian adults under 30 think democracy is “the most preferable form of government”.
Just consider that.

Stu although I very much want to agree with you about not putting people in silos, I think if you have a situation like Indigenous Australians where by all the standard indicators of poverty and disadvantage, Indigenous people emerge as the most socially and economically deprived, then you actually do need to address them as a group.

But yes, it is time to value collective responses over individual needs but this would require a rethink of many things our "civilisation" is founded upon, specifically the primacy of the individual in the liberal tradition, and also the reinvigoration and respect of other founding values such as fact-based reason and enquiry.

AndyM Friday, 13 Sep 2024 at 11:31am

This was on The Minefield the other week, worth a listen.

I'm a big believer in addressing things based on class and need as opposed to race but in this case I think the Australian situation as opposed to the American one justifies a different approach.

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/theminefield/coleman-hughes-colou...

southernraw Friday, 13 Sep 2024 at 5:07pm

suprusty wrote:
Is a good read Southern,
"How much more valuable for this
epoch to become an inclusive era when the collectivist perspectives from
Indigenous cultures are appreciated alongside individualistic perspectives of
developed nations?"

Leaves me with many questions, main one being How do we get there? Does the book delve into any theories on achieving that or what things may look like after? I think that would be interesting too, especially considering we've just had the Voice knock back.

Gday @suprusty. Cheers for reading it. Yeah it's a really good way at looking at things from a more historical perspective of where/why the cultures have merged. Unfortunately i could only access this chapter but would be great to get a hold of the rest of the book.
Some things that came out of it for me was, especially post The Voice was the group polarisation that exists around this...i hate to call it a topic....maybe, reality? The very definition of group polarisation lays in members of an in group increasing the extremity of their beliefs in opposition to the outgroup. When you consider the chapter i posted and how this might lay somewhere within a cultural context, that being Indigenous Australia being understood to originally be a collectivist culture and then having a foreign culture that strives (and continues to strive at an almighty pace) for individualism, as AndyM and Stu pointed out, regardless of past rights or wrongs, if you put all past injustices to the side for a moment, this is a key point that hasn't been married up to the needs and desires of current day indigenous Australians.
The Voice referendum was a magnifying glass onto all the problems that exist culturally between the two groups lie. The group polarisation of the No voters and the extremity of their views (and in some cases, ridiculously extreme, you just had to read this thread to see examples) united that particular camp to a point where there was no going back and no middle ground. It was NO with little reasonable justification for saying no to a 3.8percent minority of Australians. The Yes camp, hence pushed further in the opposite direction also became part of the cycle of group polarisation, in that the no camp became the racists, the bigots, the white priveleged..etc etc. The problem was, the further we went our separate the directions the less middle ground was left to negotiate on. Now there's a smugness of the No camp and a futileness of the yes camp, and we're both further from finding solutions that we were before the referendum.
It should be noted also that there were many No voters who voted no because they thought the amendment to the constitution didn't go far enough. They fell into their own subset of groupthink, with more group polarisation occuring, and again, extreme viewpoints, non negotiables and ultimately, not getting the hoped for result.
So what to learn? At this point, it's to learn that we currently live in an age where online social media, politician and mainstream media have the power to control group think and continue to polarise groups against each other, so as each groups opinions and beliefs are so rigid and strengthened that there's no middle ground. As it stands 60percent of Australians are stoked they said No, and if they got the chance they'd do it again. There hasn't been an opportunity for the middle ground, which ironically, is what The Voice actually was, because it got bombarded by the 3 iron hammers on our current social and cultural existence is shaped.
How to fix that? That's outta my league. Great post above btw AndyM.

AlfredWallace Friday, 13 Sep 2024 at 6:52pm

southernraw wrote:
Pleasure AW. One of the better papers i've read in some time and provides a bit of perspective and context of all influences in the topic.
Awesome mate. Safe and happy travels. Nothing better than getting out on the road again. Yew!

Southernraw. Hi mate.

I’ve just read the aforementioned.

It’s very good, succinct and couriers a message to all of us , before we flap our mouths off , take the time to consider (if possible) how indigenous people think and act.

Of course we will never intimately know because we are not raised in that culture.

So, for those on this thread, and it’s been going for ages, who perpetually feel the need to try to smear and throw shit on aboriginal people.

Take a long hard look at yourselves, it’s about you, isn’t it, not them.

You’re the ones feeling aggrieved living in a privileged society with all of your little problems. Miserable in your own backyards or bedrooms.

Try and walk in aboriginal people’s tracks for one day and see how you’d cope.

Not very well, I’m thinking. AW

AlfredWallace Friday, 13 Sep 2024 at 7:20pm

AlfredWallace wrote:
southernraw wrote:
Pleasure AW. One of the better papers i've read in some time and provides a bit of perspective and context of all influences in the topic.
Awesome mate. Safe and happy travels. Nothing better than getting out on the road again. Yew!

Southernraw. Hi mate.

I’ve just read the aforementioned.

It’s very good, succinct and couriers a message to all of us , before we flap our mouths off , take the time to consider (if possible) how indigenous people think and act.

Of course we will never intimately know because we are not raised in that culture.

So, for those on this thread, and it’s been going for ages, who perpetually feel the need to try to smear and throw shit on aboriginal people.

Take a long hard look at yourselves, it’s about you, isn’t it, not them.

You’re the ones feeling aggrieved living in a privileged society with all of your little problems. Miserable in your own backyards or bedrooms.

Try and walk in aboriginal people’s tracks for one day and see how you’d cope.

Not very well, I’m thinking. AW

Edit. And let us just be reminded.

How many aboriginal people are commenting and complaining about their situation on Swellnet ?

It appears as though ( I could be wrong) that it’s mostly non-aboriginal people doing all the complaining. Really.

southernraw Saturday, 14 Sep 2024 at 7:30pm

Tonights welcome to country at GWS game pulled no punches ;)

first
previous
…
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156

The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices

Quick Links

About

User