The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
This is for those that can't understand my perspective. Woujd be very interested to hear the comments of any from previous threads regarding indigenous issues in Australia.
Would also be good to keep it clean and fact based, without resorting to personal attacks...of which I also have been guilty of. Can only try to live and learn on that front.
Its an outdated uni assignment but sadly, in nearly 10years we're still having exactly the same conversation . And it feels like the divide is even stronger. But its just my perspective. Amongst many. Interested in feedback. Cheers
Looking forward to the discussion on this thread. It’s obvious it’s something you’re very passionate about bd.
Just hope it lasts more than 24 hours before it turns into a shitstorm.
The real estate part is an interesting one. Have you bought a house/land or intend to do so?
If so, is that contradicting what your beliefs are? (Owning land that’s not ours in the first place)
Hdy goofy. Same. Gonna avoid getting into it if possible. Might leave personal circumstances re home out of it too. But yes, looking forward to it. Would actually b happy to take a back seat and see what others thoughts are. I've pretty much covered mine over and over. B doing crews heads in i reckon.
Fair enough
Hi BD, I have enjoyed corresponding with you over the years. Would love to sit on a cliff and watch the GWS swim by one day down your way.
The biggest issue I see with this is again, the concept of property. How can two very different core systems of relating to the land exist, or co-exist? Here, I believe the Mabo ruling established a way for both types of relationship to property to exist at the same time under the system of law*. Where native title, and titled land, both exist. Would love to hear from others of all views on this. The key, to me, is that it all exists under the Crown still - ie, the Queen still rules - and this is where I'd address my claims if I was writing your essay.
For my own uni essays, some 25 years ago, I was idealistic and reading them now, I regurgitated my lecturer's politics (and yes, they had an agenda). I did, however, do a reasonable paper on George Grey's unfortunate walk from north of Kalbarri back to Perth when shipwrecked, and his observations of Aboriginal life in the mid-west; as well of those of Aboriginal people on the Swan coastal plain and how the different tribes regarded each other. These sources both showed the use of agriculture (yams - this may support some of what Dark Emu is going on about) as well as disregard of other tribes ("bandy-legged creatures that eat dirt" was how an Albany area man described those in the mid-west). I'd caution against romanticising or demonising a subject or a people, all have good and bad about them.
*I believe there are also areas of Australia where tribal law takes precedence? Or is encoded into Westminster law? The great strength of the Westminster system is that it incorporates and addresses injustices - sometimes seemingly slowly, but it gets there. This is the reason it's existed and endured for over 1000 years.
I'd love to go further too, and address the mass land theft and dispossession on native peoples of the UK's Enclosure Acts, and the resultant criminalisation of common people, and their transportation out to Australia. Oh man, you could go so far on the reparations stuff - the Barbary slave trade, for example.
I think that responsibility for conflict with the original inhabitants of Australia rests with the crown. Perhaps I’m wrong but I believe that under the Royal Prerogative it is the monarch, not the Government ( ie The People) who issued directives in the late 18th century, such as the issuance of Cook to establish the existence and to claim the Great Southern Continent. As this was done in the name of the Crown by Cook then it lends credence to this idea.
It then behoves us to establish exactly who and what the Monarchy was in the age of Australian settlement. The Monarchy was not representative of the people. The holder of the Crown was basically a hereditary oligarch who’s ancestor usurped power through theft and violence. This means that the initial power, lands and wealth of the English monarch in England itself was attained at the point of the sword and through intimidatory threat.
The Monarch attained Crown rights to England in much the same way they attained Crown rights over Australia- through the paradigm of Might is Right. The people of England and the UK were not in control of their nation’s political direction, ambition or scope to the ( meagre) degree that we enjoy as a modern democracy. The Monarch called the shots. The people disagreed under threat of the sword.
The oligarch euphemistically known as the Queen/ King oversaw the confiscation of all common lands throughout England. This dispossessed the English from their ancestral homelands. The resulting feudal system and dispossession created an underclass of English people. This underclass was the useful enemy of the oligarchy and the tenuous livelihoods of this underclass led to an essential criminality forming amongst them purely to elicit survival.
The oligarchy found themselves overwhelmed with the growing underclass which had resulted from the dispossession of the English, Irish, Welsh and Scots from their homelands. The Monarchy’s answer was to abolish the underclass to foreign lands and utilise their enforced servitude AKA slave labour under the thin ruse of appropriate criminal punishment.
It was these victims of class warfare who were sent to Australia, amongst other prison colonies. The convict slaves harboured no natural or ingrained ambition to invade or alienate the original Australian inhabitants. Both convict slave and Aboriginal suffered at the hands of the same unelected oligarch.
The Crown declared Australia to be a possession for itself. It allocated lands to convicts who had survived the insufferable misery of being forcibly separated from all family and love ones and their spiritual homelands. It did this to ensure it had a steady labour force with which to extend its empire.
The convict slaves were the first wave of immigrants. They were immigrants as surely as any immigrant who had arrived over the past 250 years. They were immigrants as surely as any immigrant who arrived over the past 60,000 years. The convict slaves possessed no guns or weapons with which to invade or displace the armed Aborigines who already inhabited Australia.
Whilst there is no denial of the privations, suffering, wholesale massacres and brutal displacement levelled at the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia by the Oligarchy and those who perpetuated it’s avaricious will at the threat of death ( Failing to obey the crown was punishable by death) and also at the hands of a host of non -representative individuals amongst a minority of the population , the actual settlement of Australia was an act of immigration by those either against their will, or those seeking a better life in a new land, just as the original inhabitants had sought in Australia themselves when they migrated from foreign lands.
The ensuing waves of immigrants from the United Kingdom bore many similarities to the immigration following the Second World War. The first wave of immigrants to Australia were slow to arrive in the initial decades after Sydney Cove was settled. It took 200 years for the first 14 million to arrive and only another 20 years for the next 10 million.
Every single inhabitant of Australia is an immigrant. The land itself is over 4000,000,000 years old at least. Modern Australia has become the peaceful, tolerant and prosperous land it now is as result of the coordinated labour, ambition and initiative of every inhabitant who lives here. Our society is the result of waves of immigration. Not every instance of immigration has been entirely beneficial to the generation of immigrants who arrived before, nor have they been entirely detrimental.
In summation: The call for reparations requires the conflation between the concept of invader and immigrant. Whilst it remains an irrevocable stain on the history of our nation that the original inhabitants were so brutalised, displaced and decimated, the truth is that the responsibility for this lies with a foreign power who now has no real legitimacy within Australia and who should be completely detached from our nation’s political seat of influence. The people of Australia are immigrants and any historical wrongs are not of their collective intent, malice or evil ambition any more than an immigrant who steps off a plane tomorrow is responsible.
We are all Australians. We all have ancestry which stretches back into time long forgotten, the only time we can control is the future. Australians all have equal opportunity in the current time. Every person in Australia can wake up tomorrow and choose to live their life however they see fit. If a person of Aboriginal descent moves to India they are not invading India. They do not owe reparations for the land they walk, live and work upon. An immigrant from India does not owe reparations to Aboriginal Australians. Nor does someone whose ancestors immigrated from England as a convict slave 250 years ago.
Hiya VJ. Always great to hear from you and read your thoughts.
Whoa yeah, there's a whole lot to unearth in what you wrote so i'll have to read it a few times.
Would love to read those diaries. They would be fascinating. That's a very good point about Crown land and where the ownership currently lies.
Yeah reading back over the short paper, it was a bit cringy at times, but thought i'd leave as is. Definitely an element of idealism to it all but probably more just to throw ideas out there. And glad i did because it starts a conversation here, some 8 years later ;-)
I have a huge amount to learn still. But these forums can definitely be a great place for that. Especially with contributions like yours.
And agreed, best to not categorise/demonise groups of people. Can only take that on board.
Like i said above, i'm happy to read all that's put out there and learn more, of all views. There's plenty to take in, and like you said, you could chat all day.
Definitely, any time you're over this way, pointer spotting for sure! haha.
Now's not ideal though...35knot sustained NW winds incoming and a 9metre plus swell. Will be busting out the camera for sure though.
Cheers for your thoughts and passing on some stuff for me to look into further.
Blowin wrote:I think that responsibility for conflict with the original inhabitants of Australia rests with the crown. Perhaps I’m wrong but I believe that under the Royal Prerogative it is the monarch, not the Government ( ie The People) who issued directives in the late 18th century, such as the issuance of Cook to establish the existence and to claim the Great Southern Continent. As this was done in the name of the Crown by Cook then it lends credence to this idea.
It then behoves us to establish exactly who and what the Monarchy was in the age of Australian settlement. The Monarchy was not representative of the people. The holder of the Crown was basically a hereditary oligarch who’s ancestor usurped power through theft and violence. This means that the initial power, lands and wealth of the English monarch in England itself was attained at the point of the sword and through intimidatory threat.
The Monarch attained Crown rights to England in much the same way they attained Crown rights over Australia- through the paradigm of Might is Right. The people of England and the UK were not in control of their nation’s political direction, ambition or scope to the ( meagre) degree that we enjoy as a modern democracy. The Monarch called the shots. The people disagreed under threat of the sword.
The oligarch euphemistically known as the Queen/ King oversaw the confiscation of all common lands throughout England. This dispossessed the English from their ancestral homelands. The resulting feudal system and dispossession created an underclass of English people. This underclass was the useful enemy of the oligarchy and the tenuous livelihoods of this underclass led to an essential criminality forming amongst them purely to elicit survival.
The oligarchy found themselves overwhelmed with the growing underclass which had resulted from the dispossession of the English, Irish, Welsh and Scots from their homelands. The Monarchy’s answer was to abolish the underclass to foreign lands and utilise their enforced servitude AKA slave labour under the thin ruse of appropriate criminal punishment.
It was these victims of class warfare who were sent to Australia, amongst other prison colonies. The convict slaves harboured no natural or ingrained ambition to invade or alienate the original Australian inhabitants. Both convict slave and Aboriginal suffered at the hands of the same unelected oligarch.
The Crown declared Australia to be a possession for itself. It allocated lands to convicts who had survived the insufferable misery of being forcibly separated from all family and love ones and their spiritual homelands. It did this to ensure it had a steady labour force with which to extend its empire.
The convict slaves were the first wave of immigrants. They were immigrants as surely as any immigrant who had arrived over the past 250 years. They were immigrants as surely as any immigrant who arrived over the past 60,000 years. The convict slaves possessed no guns or weapons with which to invade or displace the armed Aborigines who already inhabited Australia.
Whilst there is no denial of the privations, suffering, wholesale massacres and brutal displacement levelled at the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia by the Oligarchy and those who perpetuated it’s avaricious will at the threat of death ( Failing to obey the crown was punishable by death) and also at the hands of a host of non -representative individuals amongst a minority of the population , the actual settlement of Australia was an act of immigration by those either against their will, or those seeking a better life in a new land, just as the original inhabitants had sought in Australia themselves when they migrated from foreign lands.
The ensuing waves of immigrants from the United Kingdom bore many similarities to the immigration following the Second World War. The first wave of immigrants to Australia were slow to arrive in the initial decades after Sydney Cove was settled. It took 200 years for the first 14 million to arrive and only another 20 years for the next 10 million.
Every single inhabitant of Australia is an immigrant. The land itself is over 4000,000,000 years old at least. Modern Australia has become the peaceful, tolerant and prosperous land it now is as result of the coordinated labour, ambition and initiative of every inhabitant who lives here. Our society is the result of waves of immigration. Not every instance of immigration has been entirely beneficial to the generation of immigrants who arrived before, nor have they been entirely detrimental.
In summation: The call for reparations requires the conflation between the concept of invader and immigrant. Whilst it remains an irrevocable stain on the history of our nation that the original inhabitants were so brutalised, displaced and decimated, the truth is that the responsibility for this lies with a foreign power who now has no real legitimacy within Australia and who should be completely detached from our nation’s political seat of influence. The people of Australia are immigrants and any historical wrongs are not of their collective intent, malice or evil ambition any more than an immigrant who steps off a plane tomorrow is responsible.
We are all Australians. We all have ancestry which stretches back into time long forgotten, the only time we can control is the future. Australians all have equal opportunity in the current time. Every person in Australia can wake up tomorrow and choose to live their life however they see fit. If a person of Aboriginal descent moves to India they are not invading India. They do not owe reparations for the land they walk, live and work upon. An immigrant from India does not owe reparations to Aboriginal Australians. Nor does someone whose ancestors immigrated from England as a convict slave 250 years ago.
That was really well put.
Im glad you brought up convicts that was my first thought, seeing thousands of convicts were taken from their homeland endured a hell trip across the world where many died and then got treated like shit when they got here many never seeing their familys again, often over tiny insignificant crimes. (yeah i know many ended up getting land)
Im expecting we also now compensate their decedents and also familys back in England?
Anyway the original post idea is utterly ridiculous and is such a backwards and divisive mindset, imagine if it was applied to other countries around the world, almost every bit of earth has changed hands and been fought over, different tribes, ethnic groups etc and wrong doings go back all through history, where would you stop?
Imagine the shit show it would stir up.
Blowin, that's appreciated that you posted that.
Alot of what you wrote is factual, and maybe some of it is assumptions, but nevertheless, we can use this as a starting point.
Where it falls apart for me is current day suffering of Indigenous Australians. There is a huge disparity in standards of living and social acceptance/racism (still exists, i see and hear it every day) and carrying a burden that they've had to live as non humans for a large part of our white settlement here. These pains linger and affect the indigenous community in ways which you and i probably couldn't comprehend. In every facet of daily life in ways you and i both probably would never think of.
Which leads to my main reason and point for writing this little paper, was that todays suffering is something we, you and me and our government have within our power to address. And so we should, because going back, to day dot of English settlement, we did (they),...(non indigenous), did take the land and the culture away from those inhabitants. That's my feelings about it anyway. I do think reparation in the form sacrificing our own privileges for the greater good is the correct way to address this. Does it suck. Yes, short term definitely. Taking something away from us that feels inherently ours is painful. But we would be hypocritical to say it's wrong, when we are living the life we live based on that exact premise.
Thanks again for adding your thoughts.
And Indo, no worries you don't agree with it. Divisive or inclusive. Its all in the mindset.
Bravo, Blowin.
That was impressive.
Hi Blowin, good post but I think it's a little more complex than that. One of the outcomes of the English Civil war was a joint rule - a combination of the monarch AND the parliament. Many, many people died for this legal arrangement to form; the constitutional monarchy. As such, the decision to send the first fleet probably was assented by the Crown after recommendation by the ministers. (Guess what else that conflict gave us? Bill of Rights 1689 - eat yer heart out America!)
Also, by the time of the late 18th century the English throne had been occupied by.... Germans!
(Insert Monty Python: "What? Germans? What are you Germans doing in England?" etc like the French taunting skit)
Basically, the royal families of Europe intermarried - the Windsor house is a continuation of this I believe). There is nothing new to this, the Saxon defeat in 1066 saw Normans (French/Viking) take the throne, then "blend in" to the society - William of Orange did a takeover of the throne I believe (the English reverse repo'd the Dutch idea of a stock exchange - later - interestingly). Edit: also look to the time the Bank of England is formed, and who forms it and why.
So you might have to look further - who was it that benefited from kicking the people off the common land and establishing massive sheep farms? Could be a noble or commercial class. Who benefited from converting the blackfellas land into titled land - more sheep farms? Could be the same mob.
It's important to point out that in the Civil War when Charles II lost his head, the parliament also became a source of power - and this occurred as financialisation (think: titles, title to land, title to a stock certificate ---------> title to a blockchain asset) took root.
Otherwise, great post, oligarchy/underclass stuff is top notch.
The rest of the post, like your one in the other thread, is superb. Clarity of mind and purpose.
It's also interesting that the avarice of the monarch has inadvertently given us the freedoms we have today in arguably the best political system there is - I'm thinking King John being forced to sign the Magna Carta; King Charles and the Civil War and it's outcomes.
Something else to add. Blowin's relatively thorough account from the perspective of the Monarchy of how the powers that be manoeuvred their pawns (so to speak) as they established a colony on the Australian continent, is thought provoking, BUT.. it is but one half of the coin. The problem is, there is no defence to describe the political systems, the hierarchical systems that existed, the laws of various tribes, the societal structures that were in place (for 40,000 years... minimum). Can you imagine a 40000 year culture. Really, think about that. To break that culture, you're breaking 40,000 years (plus) of incredibly complex societal systems that have existed amongst peoples for an age. So to bring a completely foreign system in, and for it to dominate so quickly, and brutally, that, should be the starting point. Not so much the history of the white man prior to his coming here, although thought provoking as it may be. There is a clear distinctive point, where one overtook the other. Trying to trace back beyond that point to me seems to be missing the point.
So back to the beginning of this post, the problem is there's no clear evidence or records of how these systems operated pre white invasion, and also no clear records of Aboriginal Australians, as a whole (tribe/nation) viewed this initial invasion.
So we have a thorough history of the invader, but a void of the invaded. No internet back then. And also, i'd imagine, theres plenty that could be shared, but wiser minds of the indigenous culture have realised it would be folly to share these secrets with the white invaders. Just my opinion/imagination, but something to consider?
And Indo, i have a question for you based on your post above.
Would you say that Australia was invaded, or was it just bad luck?
Just a quick answer if possible. 1 or 2
1. Invaded
2. Bad luck
Thanks
The list of injustices and dispossession in recent history is long:
"India is sometimes pointed out as the world's most invaded country. Although the exact answer is up for debate, there are compelling reasons to believe that India may just be the most invaded country of all time. Foreigners have invaded the state over 200 times."
Only five countries on earth had no european colonisation:
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/24/5835320/map-in-the-whole-world-only-these-...
Further back, the Neandertals certainly seem to have been among the first to suffer from newcomers.
Since then it has gone on and on and on.
Even Hawaii appeared to have a first people before the Polynesians arrived who fared not so well.
bluediamond wrote:And Indo, i have a question for you based on your post above.
Would you say that Australia was invaded, or was it just bad luck?
Just a quick answer if possible. 1 or 2
1. Invaded
2. Bad luck
Thanks
1. 100% invaded
Is there a country on earth that hasn't been invaded and fought over?
Some countries fought back and won, some countries were taken over and control changed, sometimes control changes back, in many countries cases there has been changes in control more than once.
But realistically it was always going to happen, but even if somehow it had never happened and indigenous people were left to be, the modern world would have caught up and we would see exactly the same problems we see now, it would just be between one group that had decided to embrace the modern world and farming etc and another group who didnt.
We see this in many countries around the world, PNG, South America, Africa etc
BTW. PNG is a great example, where we have all the problems see in indigenous community's (even worse) but the silly explanation of colonisation/racism etc cant be used because the population is 99.9% Papuan and the people have full control of their country. (yes i know they had colonisation in the past, but its impossible to try to use it to explain todays issues)
I think the problem that most people have with understanding the problems that we see among indigenous Australians especially remote communities, is the thinking it's a result of colonialism, everything is explained with one word colonisation.
The only truth in the issues being a result of colonisation is a grass roots culture being thrust into a modern world, which dismantled the glue that held that culture together.
The glue being:
1. Purpose
2. Faith
3 Structure
Although pre white fella ingenious culture was patriarchal society with high levels of violence, these three things would have held things together and kept things in order and check..
1. Purpose: Life was busy the mind occupied always thinking and planning about the next feed, moving with the seasons, always working together as one on a common goal.
This now has been destroyed and in many cases not replaced with any real purpose, like we have in the modern world our purpose being to work and work towards goals like a house and retirement etc
Indigenous people that have joined the modern world and have purpose a job and goals are just as successful as anyone else, yeah sure like anyone else they have issues we all do, but they also magically dont feel the negative effects of colonisation that supposably haunt others especially those in remote communities..
2. Faith: A belief system, this was a very pure animistic based one being in the environment, the landscape, the wind, the tide, the weather, the stars etc.
A fear and respect of these things and a belief in things that cant be seen that control these things, their way of explaining what they saw, call them spirits if you like, fear of these forces/spirits helped keep things in check, in a similar way that fear of god in christianity or other religions have for many society's in the past.
This was destroyed by what white fella brought mostly in practical understanding/explanation/science, maybe to an extent in some cases for a period this was replaced by christianity and a fear of god but rarely has this lasted.
Structure: Although society was patriarchal based and wouldn't have been much fun being a women, which is the same with any culture going back hundreds or thousands of years, it worked because it had structure and a system and even laws.
Much of that structure has been destroyed add in things like money and corruption and it gets even worse.
BTW. In regard to your comment
bluediamond wrote:. Divisive or inclusive. Its all in the mindset.
Can you tell me any time in history where treating people differently based on race or skin colour has produced unity and inclusiveness?
Indo.." Im glad you brought up convicts that was my first thought, seeing thousands of convicts were taken from their homeland endured a hell trip across the world where many died and then got treated like shit when they got here many never seeing their familys again, often over tiny insignificant crimes. (yeah i know many ended up getting land)
Im expecting we also now compensate their decedents and also familys back in England?"
Convicts were criminals under the British Law , and rightfully or wrongly they were shipped out to Australia for their crimes. They were sentenced and convicted under what we now consider to be a very harsh Colonial System .
the abused convicts became settlers on their new lands , and their treatment by their lords and masters was in turn replicated towards the First peoples...Blowin calls them immigrants , I see them as displaced convicts who if it weren't for the war in America , would have ended up in the USA....
the idea of compensating convict families to me is a bit like , paying people for being a criminal!
The idea of compensating Blackfellas with material stuff , just doesn't work either ! the few elders that I have spoken with , have already forgiven any past injustices , but they do not accept whiteman's greed for all things material.....but would like to teach whitefellas about their 50000 year old culture , and to Respect who and what they are...and their connection to country as Stewards/custodians .....not ownership like we need !
"The idea of compensating Blackfellas with material stuff , just doesn't work either ! the few elders that I have spoken with , have already forgiven any past injustices , but they do not accept whiteman's greed for all things material.....but would like to teach whitefellas about their 50000 year old culture , and to Respect who and what they are...and their connection to country as Stewards/custodians .....not ownership like we need !"
nailed it.
+2
On the ball Bonza. Answer is in Statement from the Heart.
"This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown. "
Talks of sovereignty for them being a spiritual thing. FFS why cant our current Government just get on with the job here.
PS Wyatt said its because he didn't think a referendum to change the constitution would get up now or something like that . Bearing in mind the republic debacle - prob right.
Thanks for your post Indo.
I thought you answered both 1 in the first sentence, and then 2 in the rest so i'm still not convinced on where you really stand.
Could you explain.. 'Although pre white fella ingenious(indigenous) culture was patriarchal society with high levels of violence, these three things would have held things together and kept things in order and check..' and the evidence you have of this? That's a fairly vague assumption without proper links/references and journals, and quite a provocative statement. I would have imagined it was a little more complex than that. Also i believe, as you have pointed out, there was violence in many cultures world wide at that point in time.
Which is another point i want to make. All of the above you stated, which you stated well as historical evidence, happened over time, a long time ago. We are here, in 2021, with the same indigenous nation that were here from the beginning. Is it not possible to imagine, as a collective race, we have evolved enough in our way of handling and treating other humans that the conversation for some form of reparations, (in the form Brutus described above being one prime example, which would be education...but that education won't happen in a vaccuum. It would have to come from policies, and a change in social structure, hence my suggestions of releasing our grip on all the structures that our current society is held together by..even if just a little bit to start).
I'm fascinated also that the general consensus is a belief that allowing more Indigenous freedom in the way Australia moves forward as a society is worse than allowing what's currently happening with the way our government is going now, especially when you consider the road they're taking us down with environmental/climatic issues. And that could be either governments, left or right. But that's another issue, however just pointing out, a change is not necessarily a bad thing.
So imagine a world in the next 10 years like the one Brutus pointed out above. I think the thing that really bugs me, is i, like many know how much Indigenous Australians have to offer us all as humans, to bring us more connected to ourselves and to the natural world around us. It's frustrating to see the stubborness of the Australian psyche in disallowing that to shine through ignorance and through not being willing to give a little bit up.
And to the last part of your post, 'Can you tell me any time in history where treating people differently based on race or skin colour has produced unity and inclusiveness?'. I think this is the fundamental point we are not seeing eye to eye on. I'm seeing a culture and nation of people, living on the same continent as us, who aren't being treated the same as you and me. So what you are seeing as treating Indigenous people as separate to you and me. The whole point i'm on here rambling on is because it's a common ground and unity of humans that i want to see. I just can't see how it can be achieved with our greed from 200 plus years ago continuing on the trajectory it has been on since that time.
That is a ray of light, the bit about the greed for all material things and the wish to teach about the culture. Thankyou to Brutus, Jackstance and others for their thoughts here over time. As surfers, we don't really need much and we are in the environment far more than contemporary people in post-industrial society. If only what we used in the water was more given from the earth (wood) rather than extracted out of it (oil). I think the world (everyone) went past the carrying capacity of the Earth in 1986? Shudder to think how the hyper-global development eg rise of China has further impacted things.
I would say though, Brutus, the people who became convicts had their land nicked, they had it stolen off them - compensation is the only way forward. When they hunted a pheasant on their common land, they got done, processed, and transported. In this respect, the world can learn from the struggle of the Aboriginal people, can look to it to see how to achieve recognition and a path forward. I believe the two injustices are linked in a causative manner. Maybe restoring commons in conjunction with the current law of title would be the way - imagine the young having access to land at non-ridiculous prices.
The colonisation of Europe's religions by Christianity circa 700AD-on is a massive loss (or was former knowledge hidden and some remains?)
BD - the situation today. I got to travel all over for my work and got to see reservations - both good things and bad things. I don't know how to fix the situation to be honest. I would start by listening to the elders.
1066 Norman Conquest
William the Conqueror (right) declares all land belongs to the Crown, and parcels it out to barons and the Church, while keeping an estate for the monarchy. Some major dispossession of locals there..........
Agreed VJ. Have no idea how to fix it but lots of conversations can only help get us all thinking.
Agreed on the sentiment of elders. I guess i'm trying to open an avenue where there would be a platform for elders to have that position of influence for all of Australia.
This has been good reading everyones thoughts and observations though because it gives me personally alot of different perspectives to look at things from so thanks to all. Appreciate the time taken to put thoughts out there.
Very impressed with the comments above and the tone of debate . There is an urgent need to do something as the social problems in the indigenous community are a national disgrace . We are a democracy so we need general approval from all Australians to make changes . When humans moved from hunter gather societies to farming everyone's ( except the rulers ) quality of life decreased . Unfortunately it was needed to progress to modern societies . I believe to English (Westminster ) were a better option than say the Spanish or Dutch . Unfortunately , if ANY person continues to spend their time and energy resenting the past they have difficulty grasping the possibilities of the future .
hutchy, good point.
what hope is there when the first nations federal and state pollies, beauracrats allowed rio tinto to destroy (kaboom!!) that world heritage listed cave in w.a.?
rio gave the indigenous authorities 12mnths notice of intent and 3mnths final warning and first nation reps did'nt stop it or hold demonstrations?
these ppl should be held to account not rio, named and shamed and "please explain" to their cousins and the united nations world heritage authority.
the silence from msm, atsic about this unfrknblvble event is deafening, nothing to see, won't happen again...silence.
this is how corruption works in oz...cushy govt job+$$$ and go with the flow.
bluediamond wrote:So imagine a world in the next 10 years like the one Brutus pointed out above. I think the thing that really bugs me, is i, like many know how much Indigenous Australians have to offer us all as humans, to bring us more connected to ourselves and to the natural world around us. It's frustrating to see the stubborness of the Australian psyche in disallowing that to shine through ignorance and through not being willing to give a little bit up.
.
How do i say this in a respectful way?
Do you honestly think indigenous people in Indigenous communities are "connected to themselves and the natural world"?
Im sure there is positives aspects to indigenous communities, but we all know that a large number of indigenous communities across Australia have all kinds of social problems, problems that only they themselves can sort out. (even then IMHO most of these issues cant be sorted out until the people have purpose and the culture reformed to adapt to the modern world)
I dont mean to sound harsh, but with all respect i dont think most Indigenous people are in a position to be giving out advice on how the rest of Australians should live, elders in their communities aren't fixing their problems, many elders are actually a part of the problem.
The reality is Indigenous people are no different to anyone else, they are just people some good some bad, some clever some not clever, they dont hold any magical powers or secret wisdom, if you have a connection to indigenous culture or people and think you can find positives for yourself then great, but you are no different to anyone else who finds positives or answers for themselves through any other culture (often their own roots) or through religion or even through lifestyle choices or a past time or some type of expression or whatever it may be.
BTW. In regard to political influence there is many many Aboriginal people in politics, currently one in government and half a dozen in the senate, then you have indigenous people at other levels of politics, my two personal favourites Jacinta price & Warren Mundine.
And guess what like all groups of people they all have completely different ideas on how things should be done or political or social ideologies.
Indo you are just generalizing , when as you know all the different mobs in Australia have been affected differently by whitemans influences some good and a lotta bad.......
There are the urban mobs who have grown up in whtemans world without a traditional connection to their past culture and there are those who have been brought up with traditional culture.....
I have seen and been part of the Urban Blackfellas without the respect and the traditional upbringing, to having a very good friend who works with " the Spinfex people" as a Social worker .... this friend has worked and written books...now a movie on the spinifex people...i
he tells amazing stories how their culture worked and works.....Elders have the law of the community and uphold the law , both mean and women......when you have a child , it first and foremost belongs to the Community , and the parents must succumb to the Elders......these blackfellas/elders are still at 90 years of age capable of hunting and being active elders in the community....it's their responsiblity........a really funny story was my mate was sitting on the veranda with a 73 year old young fella......who turned to him and asked /said.....
" we just don't get you Winmen ?"
reply "sorry do you mean Whiteman"
" Nah we call you win men because why do you have to win at everything"
There was a young fella who grabbed a car and started doing burnouts every where, so round and round the camp he drove , dust and noise everywhere .....the whole community slowly but surely went back to their respective houses took a seat and looked on...as did my mate with the 73 year old.....eventually the car ran out of petrol , 2 elders walked over and beat the shit out of the kid.....my mate said that's a bit brutal?....73 year old cracked up and said , the reason the bloke ran out , was to get there before the women as they would have beat the shit out of him with nulla nullas.......so there is an incredible consistency to the Spinifex peoples laws which are the responsibility of the elders.....
I have seen versions of the above in remote communities , where elders rule , there is a much easier law to follow....very simple and effective we could learn a lot from studying how First Australians socially evolved over 50 000 years......and I personally love the "Winman" story as we in our current Civilization...it's all about winning....
So Indo I accept what you say about modern day blackfellas who have been caught up in Winman culture and also understand why the traditional values of Our first peoples is so enticing to disconnected Blackfellas to go and find their roots , as the Winman system has not delivered a happy full life....
I was actually thinking more of the remote community's this where the major problems are and where its hard to ever see improvement without employment that provides real purpose of life.
City groups might have their issues, but these are based more around social economic disadvantage, these problems are much easier to solve and expect will get better in time.
Regional type towns also have issues and perhaps sit somewhere beteween the two.
If connection to nature or land is so great, why is it that those in remote communities and whom have often retained culture more then those in citys or even regional areas are the ones with the biggest issues?
BTW. Dont get me wrong, i love nature and i feel connected to many natural areas that i love, it is soul soothing to go to your special place and take it all in especially alone, but let's also be realistic and not think that being connected to land or nature solves the problems of people or the world.
"Bravo, Blowin.
That was impressive."
certainly presents as a reasonable argument
the 'advocates' have been going at their rather ambiguous legal angle for a long time now
lots in there that should / should have been considered as a starting point, if they really think that will succeed as a way forward
Indo.....I think we are at an impasse.....as we have a different philosophy on life in regards to money and power vs spirituality........or one could call spirituality , intrinsic joy and happiness in life.
when you say " without employment that provides real purpose of life." we are at different ends of the spectrum.......employment is the purpose in life , defines a whiteman's failed approach to what's important in life.....
First peoples in remote communities have had to suffer whitemans approach to them....give them housing /food etc and they should be happy......they have suffered thru alcohol and sugar diet...stolen generation , disrespect for their culture , systemic racism....one would like to think that with the discussions we are having now , actually brings the issues out , try asking blackfellas what they want and stop telling them what you think they need!
In the recent Wadjemup/Rottnest Comp Uncle Lenny ( Elder) was asked what features of whitemans culture would you take onboard into your culture....the answer was....nothing!
Brutus- Reckon you could do both you and me a favour, mate ?
Yeah, if you could leave out the demonisation of “Whiteman’s culture” it’d be appreciated. Continuing to do so both irritates me and makes you look like a shallow thinker who hasn’t really thought about what it is he’s talking about, or even who it is he’s talking about.
For a start “White” people don’t share a common set of stereotypical cultural traits anymore than a Fijian and an African share cultural traits because they’ve both got dark skin. I’m pretty sure that you’re aware but not even two white Australians from the same suburban street are guaranteed to have the same cultural traits.
If you think all white people are consumed with winning above all else, then you either don’t know many white people or you don’t know them as well as you think.
Start there and contemplate every white person you’ve ever met and ask yourself-“Am I faithfully representing this person? “ when you start ascribing generalisations about them - spirituality, personality, culture - because of the amount of pigment in their skin.
Thanks.
I like to read and encourage contributions from butus, love to in fact... as I think they are most invaluable, for many many reasons... (written without a single ounce of lip service)
but...
"Brutus- Reckon you could do both you and me a favour, mate ?
Yeah, if you could leave out the demonisation of “Whiteman’s culture” it’d be appreciated. Continuing to do so both irritates me and makes you look like a shallow thinker who hasn’t really thought about what it is he’s talking about, or even who it is he’s talking about.
For a start “White” people don’t share a common set of stereotypical cultural traits anymore than a Fijian and an African share cultural traits because they’ve both got dark skin. I’m pretty sure that you’re aware but not even two white Australians from the same suburban street are guaranteed to have the same cultural traits.
If you think all white people are consumed with winning above all else, then you either don’t know many white people or you don’t know them as well as you think.
Start there and contemplate every white person you’ve ever met and ask yourself-“Am I faithfully representing this person? “ when you start ascribing generalisations about them - spirituality, personality, culture - because of the amount of pigment in their skin.
Thanks."
hear hear to that!
this displays the biggest failure, the most miserable assumptions, and generally the most damaging to the wider cause oversight, of the whole identity politics movement...
not to mention the hypocrisy...
and irony...
again...
and, you are doing exactly what you accuse indo of
I also like to read Brutus’ opinions and knowledge. He’s a smart enough fella to appreciate how two wrongs don’t make a right.
Good on you folks. This is a robust conversation but good to see it's remained (mostly) respectful.
Indo, just back to your reply above, i guess we have different perspectives ultimately. Same as Blowin, and Sypkan and a few other posters, and i'm not surprised. Your views have always been pretty clear in the past and trying to provide a new way of thinking and letting go of your old views doesn't seem to have much impact. And i would argue that you folk represent at least 85-90 percent of the Australian population (the white ones Blowin). That's ok. That's how it is. Just have to be the outsider. It's not easy being green!!
The reality is that there is an issue that isn't going away, and if it was to change, we all, as a social collective would need to change something about ourselves too. I don't see that happening by reading these comments and from some of the filth i hear day either online or in the 'real world'. Racism is very real in this country against indigenous crew.
Indo i'd argue that historically speaking, trying to 'assimilate' a culture or 'close the gap' and bring blackfellas in line to whitefellas ways could possibly be part of the reason so many Indigenous Aussies are in the situations you pointed out above. If you can't fit in with the 'new' culture (only 200 years or so lets not forget) then where have you got left to go and what can you do?
And by the way, You mentioned in a post above that before white invasion, Indigenous life was very violent. I'm not saying it wasn't, i don't know to be honest, but to make such a strong claim like that, i'd really like to see/hear/read evidence of such. Because i haven't heard that before. Not to the extent that it was any more or less violent than whitemans culture. So if there's no evidence, i'm really wondering why you'd say it, if not to only taint the culture. Like i posted above, would like to know because i'm sure that wasn't your intentions. If you have some links or books i should read i'd be interested to learn more.
Anyway, just got back from watching the Right going bananas. That place is incredibly intense. The energy of the land there is super strong too. Its a fair walk in and you really get a sense of something bigger surrounding you in the energy. You can't help but let your mind drift to the connection the crew who traversed these lands for thousands of years must have had, and how delicate and intimate their knowledge was of everything. Quite humbling.
BTW. Indo, have you seen that doco called 'In My Blood It Runs'? It is brilliant and i think it would give you a good understanding of why alot of the struggles exist. Without giving too much away, there's a point where the education for a young fella, who's struggling with white fella education, is sent back to his homeland, and taught his native culture and educated in that way. It's a complete turnaround and he goes from being confused and up to mischief, to completely, spiritually fulfilled. Highly recommend watching it.
Sorry for long post. Will try to keep them shorter cos it's a mission reading long ones.
Blue Diamond, your courtesy and insight is commendable. Personally I find Blowfly and Indocnt to be the rather unpalatable, ingnorant, small town inbreds attempting to be bullies.
But only bullies online... Weak, keyboard dorks.
blowin and Sypkan , sorry can't do you the favour of toning down the Rhetoric on whiteman's culture.....what I could do is replace the word whiteman with Western .....not sure how caught up you are with semantics , but I can do that......???
I did not make the statement , on the Winman quote , that is from an elder who has seen very little of Western Culture . When you look at how we as a Western society seem to be evolving with smart phones in hand , we need the latest greatest gadget , plus fashion , obsolescence the list goes on , it seems like we crave entertainment and toys like never before.....so I can see the whole winman angle...... or the material angle of Western life......
So Really it's what fills your life with Joy and in turn happiness.......so I'll say it again it's materialism vs Spiritualism..........your question should be ...is there a balance between the two....
as far as all the cultural traits etc of White Australian go ....becoming less and less as we assimilate more immigrants.......especially Asians, and we now have added positives /pluses from their respective culture.....slowly but surely morphing into a cosmopolitan society....but our foundations should be built on our First peoples culture.....but first we need to learn more!!
Remember when Sheep Shagger was going for his P plates and the driving instructor said “ Can you make a U turn?”
“”I can make her eyes pop!” Replied Sheep Shagger.
Lonely isolated white men (Blowfly, Indocnt) discuss race issues while hiding online.
I read this book https://www.whywarriors.com.au/services/why-warriors-lie-down-and-die/ over 20 years ago (BC Krudd – apologies for the photo) and have periodically returned to it since.
It is Yolgnu focussed but I personally found it highly insightful and tangible to the western world, that is:
No sense of self, purpose or direction in life = self-destruction
If there is anything we can learn from our first nations it is land management. And it is really cool to see some solid outcomes in the northern Australian indigenous rangers up north as an example. Unfortunately a lot of this knowledge on the southern eastern seaboard has been lost. However there are great signs some of this knowledge is being re-learnt with the help of experts. There is a long way to go but the indigenous land management teams down here, recognised under the state and federal legislation are starting to show real promise in enviro outcomes. This is not only great for our landscapes but also for ones sense of purpose (the amazing feeling of receiving a paypacket that you earnt). But I would go one step further – its not a bullshit job either. It matters.
I see language as a really positive step for non-indigenous in recognising aboriginal culture and history and its really cool seeing this being gradually applied and recognised in the mainstream. In no way should we remove European names – that is our history too, good and bad. But it’s cool to recognise the older and just as important indigenous place names and culture. Not only is language great for ones self-worth and identity but it’s a solid, easy link for me as a white fella to connect with aboriginal culture and develop my respect for the culture constructively in a meaningful albeit gradual way.
I think we are moving in the right direction. I want to see formal aboriginal representation in the constitution. I think this will happen. Hopefully sooner than later. I think this a great way for us to formally recognise first nations. It will build their self respect and our western centric understanding better.
I don’t agree with robbing Peter to pay Paul as Blue diamond has opened with. I think that is seriously destructive. See book link.
“insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”
I understand that I need to occasionally accept some of the pain and trauma experienced by the individual or collective indigenous will be expressed as outrage to me. I need to take it on the chin as part of a healing process.
But I think tokenistic statements about what’s best for aboriginals (including from me) and why all white people are racists is bullshit and damaging to the cause. Understandable and in many cases acceptable from a blackfella but particularly grating from an urban whitefella with no skin in the game (pun intended)
There is some serious heavy negative shit that is happening in blackfella communities across the country. If you have lived in or near one you will have experienced it. The causes for this may lie at the history of their dispossession, but that doesn’t excuse it. Pretend activists need to remember this. It’s not racist to call it out. Equally so this is not representative of the aboriginal culture either. Ignorant non-indigenous peeps should accept that.
Just my opinion. Thanks
"Good on you folks. This is a robust conversation but good to see it's remained (mostly) respectful.
Indo, just back to your reply above, i guess we have different perspectives ultimately. Same as Blowin, and Sypkan and a few other posters, and i'm not surprised. Your views have always been pretty clear in the past and trying to provide a new way of thinking and letting go of your old views doesn't seem to have much impact. And i would argue that you folk represent at least 85-90 percent of the Australian population (the white ones Blowin). That's ok. That's how it is. Just have to be the outsider. It's not easy being green"
see there you go again bluediamond... with your run of the mill, indoctrinated, opinionated, miserable assumptions...
you see, I don't see the situation much differently to you at all, and I dare say I share some of your solutions. where I differ is, I don't see the point in blaming old white dudes for all of the world's woes. aside from being incredibly divisive, and isolating the very people you need on side, most old white dudes are struggling just as much as blackfellas in eeking out a reasonable existence in what is a very stacked system
the reality is, I'd say 85% of (white) australians would be more than happy to give blackfellas more power and autonomy, they just don't agree with the contemporary narrative, and how certain 'advocates' push all sorts of idealistic opinion on how to fix stuff, with not much to back it up... and I cannot stress this enough, but a lot of what you and your comrades push as facts and incontrovertable truths is actually just opinion... perspective... yes, possibly well educated opinion and perspective, but opinion nonetheless...
the fact you think you can impose what you obviously have been educated in as incontrovertable truths is quite alarming to me, and I would say, contrary to the theory that guided your education!
now all that may seem a bit short and personal, but it is not intended this way. you are not alone in your endeavour, you are the narrative of the contemporary left. who aren't bad and evil at all, but they are somewhat indoctrinated, opinionated, and righteous, and it would seem... somewhat misguided by idealism...
once upon a time, the left used to appeal to people's better character, ...to give people a 'fair go', ...a hand up, ...to battle inequalities, ...to help those less fortunate, they did this by making a case, and appealing to people's better qualities, and the possibly 'universal values' of helping thy neighbour...
they didn't name call, belittle, and demonise a whole section of society as being the root of all the world's problems based on colour, sex, and age demographic...
like andym pointed out to you, I might just agree more than disagree with most of what you say, but when you get all hyper-righteous and '...swellnet shouldn't give a platform to...' blah blah blah... I start thinking... it's this guy that has no idea, ...and it's this guy that is dangerous... and this guy is counter productive....
you see, I'm possibly a bit old school, but I value free speech (and a few other things) over just about anything, because they are the fundamentals of what make our system work.
now I know you take a different perspective, where anything whiteman is bad... but sorry mate, please point out another country that's doing a better job than us, that does overly restrict speech and human freedoms etc. ...im happy to be schooled...
Im gonna post this in haste, and curse that damn disappearing edit button...
but maybe have a think how blackfellas are meant to get ahead in this ever more competitive world where labour and capital are overly encouraged to be more and more fluid...
think about other versions of colonisation...
how'd the dutch go in indo? ...how'd the indo's go in facing / overcoming it?
maybe compare that with singapore, malaysia, and even india...
how about the spanish? ...good guys?
brutus, I think that would sit better... (western)
tbh, I don't get butt hurt by your writing at all, ...i seriously couldn't give a shit... but I do find it rather simplistic in it's analysis, ...and somewhat hypocritical... which ain't cool..
and, i know plenty of whitefellas living closer to your dream than many blackfellas are, or even strive to be... and that's ok...
also, i forget the academic, but he was your run of the mill left aboriginal advocate, that wrote in one of his works, that while he has the utmost respect for aboriginals and their connection to land, he does not accept or believe that whiteman is not capable of the same said feelings or connection...
yeh, he's a white guy... but I'm sure a lot of people feel the same when tasked with reading perspectives that can sometimes seem somewhat fawning and dogmatic
That's fair enough Sypkan,. I don't mind you having a crack and i see validity in your points.
I'm trying to make my posts as factual as possible, and non emotive.
If i say 85 percent of Australians think along the lines of indifference and ignorance, that is because it's based on pure observation. What would you like me to do about that? Close my eyes. Close my ears. Shut up and not observe?
I'm also posting this in a bit of haste too as i'm in the middle of working but like i said, no sweat, don't mind hearing the criticism.
And this is no disrespect to you, Blowin and Indo, but you guys do really dominate the forums. It would be good to hear more than 3 sides to every argument, so to speak. Maybe there's some crew actually involved in this issue more than you and i who could set some facts straight and give us a word from the ground of what's really going on?? I don't pretend to have the answers and am only offering an alternative way of viewing things. Nothing more.
Thanks for taking the time to message though. Appreciate it.
And if i use emotive words, and phrases, it's intentional, and its because i want to get your reactions. Seemed it worked!
Hey Bonza. Sorry, just saw your post. Really great post.
I pretty much agree with much of your line of thinking.
Not sure we're on the same page to where my drive and motives lie and maybe there's been a misunderstanding in that. I actually think we're on the same page and agree, tokenism sucks!!
I think my very original post shows that i'm all for coexistence, but it has to come from acknowledgement...and as Brutus points out, let our foundations of this country come from our First Nations crew. But for that foundation to be in place, a change of consciousness/thinking/acting has to take place. And you outlined it perfectly to be honest. I find it hard for any coexistence to take place without that and i reckon that's the truth in the situation.
There's fundamental things that keep coming up, that i get reactive about. It's more about the word...'but'.
You see...I keep hearing alot of i'm all for indigenous rights/people/equality...but!!
Sadly, there is no but. There is only truth.
To say 'but' is to deny truth. To deny truth is to avoid moving forward.
The truth is as i keep saying, this country was invaded. We are the invaders.(don't take it personally..just how it is). The invaded are suffering. That is the truth. That is the constant in this whole conversation. Make of it what you will, but i can assure you 100percent, there is no argument that will prevail against this truth.
Some will try to construe arguments about other races, other eras, other invasions, other cultures. That's not this truth. This truth is right before our eyes, and for us to decide what to do. As it says in my original paper, history will judge us on this.
Hey thanks for that book link. I can't wait to read it. Fark, i've got alot of homework here but i'll chip away. Thanks again for your post legend. I thought it was a reallly good one and i'll take alot out of it. Sorry for a little rant in the middle but i just wanna double down on my convictions so as there's no uncertainty to my thoughts.
@bluediamond , Good thread and interesting read and everyone’s views . I’ve traveled Australia a fair bit in my youth surfing and later chasing work. Seen various towns and their differences in how everyone black and white gets along . When you compare a town like Tom Price to Newman there is a huge difference. I also don’t understand some communities like those on Palm island off Qld . I’ve never been there just seen media reports and word of mouth . To me palm island looks like paradise, yet the violence and drug abuse is out of control . I don’t know the full circumstances of conditions there , it just seems some indigenous areas of Australia live traditional life peacefully doing what they have always done and other areas are out of control .
Bonza....I don't think white people are being demonized here , but when you look at the past and start learning about our history it's hard to not be very critical of days gone by , and try and relate past actions to what's happening today , not as an excuse but in trying to understand the problem and the issues that are plaguing our First peoples , we have to try and understand what they want relative to their culture not ours!
the latest figures on incarceration and suicide of our Nations First Peoples shows an increase in the last 12 mths....and we have world record issues in the lives of our Australian First peoples......it's getting worse.....
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/closing-the-gap-indigenous-su...
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
The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
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