The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
gsco wrote:It’s actually the main target market of the yes campaign: the new age progressive left, aka the Woke.
The big problem with that is it alienates much of the population.
If this fails as its looks like it will, it will be a real lesson for future campaigns on how not to run a referendum campaign.
These people don’t learn from the past hence our current situation.
;)
https://m.
Hmmm, a prancing drag queen or neo-nazi, tough choice
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-23/white-supremacist-red-over-black-...
indo-dreaming wrote:gsco wrote:It’s actually the main target market of the yes campaign: the new age progressive left, aka the Woke.
The big problem with that is it alienates much of the population.
If this fails as its looks like it will, it will be a real lesson for future campaigns on how not to run a referendum campaign.
Indo,
Just in case you were not aware, the “Voice” started development some eight years ago, with FNP, ALP and LNP representatives. It is not Labor’s Voice, in fact much of the ground work was done by the LNP whilst in Government.
Detail is noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament
It is not Labor’s Voice, despite what the LNP are suggesting. Our local State MP Chris Crewther was pictured recently at a NO Campaign Rally with placards “Say NO to Labors voice.” Happy to spread the bullshit it appears.
In another strange twist, many LNP members who supported the concept of the “Voice”, are now opposed, despite nothing actually changing. Let’s call it political opportunism.
It’s also blatantly apparent the NO Campaign is populated by the same people who dispute Anthropogenic Climate Change, the same people who were pictured carrying those “Ditch The Witch” and “Bob Browns Bitch” placards, the same people who supported Farage, the UKIP and Bojo in the Brexit debate, the same people who waved the Stars and Stripes in their support of Trump, and the same people who claim Covid was a scam, and the anti vaxxers. The same people who appear to attract the Neo Nazis.
All of that has to tell you something and if you can’t figure it out it’s called disruption. It’s been the LNP’s and their political support parties method of operation for the last ten years or so. Agitate, spread bullshit and misinform, undermine and generally make life difficult for the government. Ultimately, we all suffer through that course of action. Reasonable, informed and intelligent debate has been discarded and replaced by the Sky News method.
However, can you tell us all how to run a referendum campaign: I’m keen to know.
Secondly, and more importantly, what is the NO Campaign’s alternative?? Try as I might I can’t find anything remotely resembling a policy.
indo-dreaming wrote:gsco wrote:It’s actually the main target market of the yes campaign: the new age progressive left, aka the Woke.
The big problem with that is it alienates much of the population.
If this fails as its looks like it will, it will be a real lesson for future campaigns on how not to run a referendum campaign.
The political lesson for the Coalition is it will drive more younger voters away from the conservative parties all for the cause of Duttons weak leadership who needed a win.
They will see clearly the politicisation of the No arguments particularly knowing conservatives help write it under a Coalition government.
Duttons position has been taken in the full knowledge that it will be divisive, give cover for racists and extreme RWNJ's playing to the darker hearts and deeper casual racists views widely held against Aboriginals.
After the No vote gets up I suspect the genie won't want to go back into the bottle.
Albanese love or hate him ran the Voice referendum for a good cause and improvement of the situation regarding Aboriginals for which he will lose skin for, that's courage.
@Salty Dog and @ I focus. Two excellent posts right there. Well done, spot on. Don't expect any sensible, reasoned and accurate responses from the No vote rabble that post here though. To them you are a gritter or a commie who wants to make them "unequal" because a non binding advisory Voice offends their sense of entitlement and will ruin the country and give "money, power and revenge" to "activist" (Indo's spelling, not mine).
A Salty Dog wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:gsco wrote:It’s actually the main target market of the yes campaign: the new age progressive left, aka the Woke.
The big problem with that is it alienates much of the population.
If this fails as its looks like it will, it will be a real lesson for future campaigns on how not to run a referendum campaign.
Indo,
Just in case you were not aware, the “Voice” started development some eight years ago, with FNP, ALP and LNP representatives. It is not Labor’s Voice, in fact much of the ground work was done by the LNP whilst in Government.
Detail is noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament
It is not Labor’s Voice, despite what the LNP are suggesting. Our local State MP Chris Crewther was pictured recently at a NO Campaign Rally with placards “Say NO to Labors voice.” Happy to spread the bullshit it appears.
In another strange twist, many LNP members who supported the concept of the “Voice”, are now opposed, despite nothing actually changing. Let’s call it political opportunism.
It’s also blatantly apparent the NO Campaign is populated by the same people who dispute Anthropogenic Climate Change, the same people who were pictured carrying those “Ditch The Witch” and “Bob Browns Bitch” placards, the same people who supported Farage, the UKIP and Bojo in the Brexit debate, the same people who waved the Stars and Stripes in their support of Trump, and the same people who claim Covid was a scam, and the anti vaxxers. The same people who appear to attract the Neo Nazis.
All of that has to tell you something and if you can’t figure it out it’s called disruption. It’s been the LNP’s and their political support parties method of operation for the last ten years or so. Agitate, spread bullshit and misinform, undermine and generally make life difficult for the government. Ultimately, we all suffer through that course of action. Reasonable, informed and intelligent debate has been discarded and replaced by the Sky News method.
However, can you tell us all how to run a referendum campaign: I’m keen to know.
Secondly, and more importantly, what is the NO Campaign’s alternative?? Try as I might I can’t find anything remotely resembling a policy.
From your link:
"The concept was rejected at the time by the Liberal-National Turnbull government.[11]
In October 2019, the Liberal-National Morrison government discussed an "Indigenous voice to government" which would be legislated but not enshrined in the Constitution."
When the Turnbull the most left wing LNP PM who should have been a Labor member rejects it, that says something.
BTW. Notice how it says " legislated but not enshrined in the Constitution"
As we all know Voice in policy = no issue the issue is it being cemented in the Constitution.
Yes I can 100% tell you how to run a referendum it's not rocket science.
1. Have your shit together before you make it public, its 2023 you need a proper plan not an idea or a vibe, and you need to be able to answer every question with detail, none of this oh that will be decided latter, maybe in the past that might have cut it but not today.
Better still with something like this, it would have been smart to put it in policy first, so people can see what it is and how it works and give them confidence (problem with this is it would show everyone that its not that great)
2. Anyone involved needs to have a clean background, you cant have fools like or Thomas Mayo or Teela Reid saying all kinds of damaging things in videos etc, if you are going to risk using these types of people, you need all evidence on Youtube or social media removed (that is hard these days though)
3. You need to have a limited number of leaders like the No campaign, Jacinta and Warren have done a very good job, they are the figure heads
Bassically there is way to many indians who want to be chiefs on the yes camp, all saying different things, muddying and confusing people (Albo, Linda, Marcia, Noel, Megan Davies, Bruce Mayo, Teela reid, wanting the spot light, im sure there is a couple ive forgotten)
The No camp on the other hand in most case's have kept it simple and consistent.
4. Get your story straight, dont lie out your arse telling us on one hand its a modest proposal but on the other is some big game changer, or that its not about Treaty, while we can all see the evidence this is not true, or that its one page, when we can easily see its not.
This BS makes those on the fence lose trust in anything else you are saying.
5. Treat the public with respect, you aren't going to win anybody over shaming or name calling them or their beliefs be it chicken littles, racist, bigots, stupid, conspiracy theorist, people like Marcia and Noel have been complete gifts to the No campaign.
6. Dont be greedy, you can put all your money on red on one spin and you might win big, but its risky its much smarter to go a few spins with smaller amounts.
A two part question giving people a vote on both Constitutional recognition & the Voice would have at least got Constitutional recognition through, but its highly likely they will walk out with nothing and there is nobody to blame but themselves.
But i do get there is no money or power in Constitutional recognition.
In summary: be prepared, respectful, upfront & honest.
How good was that Waltzing Matilda at the G.
Go Lions!!
7. Keep Kamahl of the TV. How good was the Yes23 campaign using him an a pin up for a yes vote. hahahahaha
Welcome to country at the AFL grand final was pretty lame compared to last week.
No emotion, not engaging the crowd, just going through the steps for corporate wokeness.
Supafreak wrote:Oil it up . https://x.com/pgarrett/status/1707942867195572614?s=46&t=5RczxwAfzXe7hKR...
Another reason to vote NO. What a sellout grub
Damo wouldn’t have sold out
https://m.
Agreed!
That’s shit Burliegh! And Pete’s pitch wasn’t nasty at all. Seems pretty obvious he’d be this way and you’re calling him a sellout grub.
Explain yourself!
14 days to go until the big day
But the other big day yesterday Bobby did us proud.
seeds wrote:That’s shit Burliegh! And Pete’s pitch wasn’t nasty at all. Seems pretty obvious he’d be this way and you’re calling him a sellout grub.
Explain yourself!
Here's the pitch:
How you vote is totally up to you but we’ve decided to run a radio advertising campaign urging people not to fall for all the bullshit that’s being thrown around by the NO campaign. Just don’t let anyone treat you like a mug - if you don’t know, find out! https://yes23.com.au/vote_yes
As i said. A sellout grub. You're dumber than i thought if you believe otherwise.
Peter Garrett sell out?
No way, was disappointed he was not as effective as he may have been joining the Labor Party, as had to work within the machine, probably Greens better fit but he wanted to make a difference.
I would say he has contributed more good to Australian society than 99% of the key board warriors on this forum.
Hey seeds, well done for calling Burleigh out on this one!
As the saying goes...'It takes one to know one'.
Oozes of cynicism.
Burleigh. Planted into the forum / debate by the dark forces, such commitment is staggering.
burleigh wrote:seeds wrote:That’s shit Burliegh! And Pete’s pitch wasn’t nasty at all. Seems pretty obvious he’d be this way and you’re calling him a sellout grub.
Explain yourself!Here's the pitch:
How you vote is totally up to you but we’ve decided to run a radio advertising campaign urging people not to fall for all the bullshit that’s being thrown around by the NO campaign. Just don’t let anyone treat you like a mug - if you don’t know, find out! https://yes23.com.au/vote_yesAs i said. A sellout grub. You're dumber than i thought if you believe otherwise.
Says bloke who cannot offer a valid argument without abuse.
Carry on....
Hey Indo,
The ice is melting! Any ideas how to fix it champ?
Reform wrote:Hey Indo,
The ice is melting! Any ideas how to fix it champ?
Hi Reform
Odd question, but simple solution is to put the ice back in the freezer before it melts.
andy-mac wrote:Peter Garrett sell out?
No way, was disappointed he was not as effective as he may have been joining the Labor Party, as had to work within the machine, probably Greens better fit but he wanted to make a difference.
I would say he has contributed more good to Australian society than 99% of the key board warriors on this forum.
I agree he is no way a sell out, pushing the Yes vote is exactly what you would expect from him.
There is probably good things he has done like helping save forrest etc, but if it was up to him the hydro energy projects in Tassie would never have gotten through and Tasmania would now not be running on 100% carbon free energy.
He was also very vocal about being against Nuclear he was even in an anti nuclear party in the 80s, if there hadnt been so much opposition to nuclear in the past, its possible we would now have a small percentage of Nuclear which if we did, we would now have a base of 24/7 reliable carbon free energy which would mean the transition to 100% carbon free energy would be far far easier and much more realistic.
He has also been very divisive in regard to indigenous issue's, and helped create that all things indigenous good all things not are bad narrative that is very unhelpful .
indo-dreaming wrote:andy-mac wrote:Peter Garrett sell out?
No way, was disappointed he was not as effective as he may have been joining the Labor Party, as had to work within the machine, probably Greens better fit but he wanted to make a difference.
I would say he has contributed more good to Australian society than 99% of the key board warriors on this forum.I agree he is no way a sell out, pushing the Yes vote is exactly what you would expect from him.
There is probably good things he has done like helping save forrest etc, but if it was up to him the hydro energy projects in Tassie would never have gotten through and Tasmania would now not be running on 100% carbon free energy.
He was also very vocal about being against Nuclear he was even in an anti nuclear party in the 80s, if there hadnt been so much opposition to nuclear in the past, its possible we would now have a small percentage of Nuclear which if we did, we would now have a base of 24/7 reliable carbon free energy which would mean the transition to 100% carbon free energy would be far far easier and much more realistic.
He has also been very divisive in regard to indigenous issue's, and helped create that all things indigenous good all things not are bad narrative that is very unhelpful .
You volunteering to have the nuclear waste in your neighbourhood Indo?
“He has also been very divisive in regard to indigenous issue's, and helped create that all things indigenous good all things not are bad narrative that is very unhelpful .”
Because as Indo has pointed out before, the closer indigenous Australians are to their culture (and Papua New Guineans as well for that matter) the more violent they are.
@ the sane Andy
Honestly id have no issue with storage of nuclear waste in my shire from a safety or environment perspective but id be worried about others perception and how that would affect my property price.
But im sure there would be much better places we have so much land in Australia and most of it is arid and very stable and it nuclear waste can be stored very safely and the amounts are very small.
BTW. im not advocating for Nuclear now i think we missed our window, Im just pointing out that if history had been different and opposition not so strong that we could be in a much better position and that Garret was a part of the problem
That said i saw Dutton was pushing for smaller nuclear reactors recently, personally i dont think thats a good political move I think even if the economics somehow stack up which i believe they dont Australian's will never support nuclear because of all the past negative spin.
AndyM wrote:“He has also been very divisive in regard to indigenous issue's, and helped create that all things indigenous good all things not are bad narrative that is very unhelpful .”
Because as Indo has pointed out before, the closer indigenous Australians are to their culture (and Papua New Guineans as well for that matter) the more violent they are.
As ive said 100 times now, all culture has good and bad aspects, many indigenous people embracing their culture these days obviously only try to embrace the positives and not negatives, however yes those in remote communities where culture is strongest with less outside influence still are influence by both positive and negative aspects.
Even Peter Sutton has touched on the fact that there is traditional culture drivers to issues in remote communities in Australia (although more about personal health/sanitation aspects from memory)
You love to bring this up with your piss weak snipes from the sideline and try to use it against me, how about you have some balls and take me on and prove me wrong that culture is not a driver of many issues in both remote indigenous communities and PNG
Lets take it to PNG where things are much more clear cut.
Can you bring an argument that the high rates of violence in particular towards women are not driven by cultural aspects???
Surely you cant argue it's due to past colonialism?...or Intergenerational trauma? or racism?
Come on mate give me some proper counter argument, try proving me wrong, i bet you cant, because you are just piss weak, you sit on the sidelines and throw out little snipes and then go hide until next time, at best you will come up with some lame excuse instead of a decent counter argument.
Hi Indo,
Thanks for your reply, ha-ha yes true, good one.
I read your first posting of today and thought while we humans carry on with our daily lives and our vested interests, we are all contributing to the impact of co2 emissions and we just continue on regardless. (I include myself in this too).
However, my reasoning (for what you perceive as an odd question) is referencing and is relevant to the discussion in this referendum because we now have an opportunity of opening the door to a race that is not interested in ruining the planet.
So really if we are at all interested to make changes it would be a profound start to change the dialogue and vote YES for this race who may very well know the answers and be the saviour of our existence on this beautiful and amazing planet. Dream on you say...well just continue on and see how what a 2 degree temperature rise feels like.
For the rest of us? Well.. Some of us know the answers but the majority do not. And none are as profound as the indigenous with their higher intelligence intact.
Vote yes Indo! (I know you will privately anyway) The world and its fragile ecosystems needs it and yes it matters.
The ice is melting even faster now than 1 hour ago.
It also comes down to the indigenous of this country, for over 65,000 years, being the best at negotiations due to their unmatched track record of managing their people, the ecology systems, respect for water, soil, air and lore, and their once existence on the very land that you have your office chair on before it was clear-felled by colonisation. There's so much more isn't there!
Vote yes, for goodwill, for prosperity of all, action for the marginalised indigenous, for the worlds health and esp. for the vibe, cheers
“prove me wrong that culture is not a driver of many issues in both remote indigenous communities and PNG”
At least you’ve stopped denying what you’ve said previously.
https://m.
Jess Hitchcock.. wow!
interesting tactic garrett has taken...
clearly he's coming from a position he's long supported. but instead of showing outright support and 'telling people how to vote', he's gone the misinformation route...
unfortunately, I think this is more polarising and less effective than anything he would have normally done
blanket vehement vague claims of 'misinformation' without addressing anything, just don't cut it...
especially when your side plays the same game
and arguably, has played it harder in the lead up to this moment...
yet this is the new norm
gonna take a long time to heal from corona
not the disease
From among the survivors of these massacres, the troopers took women for themselves and the officers kidnapped children who ended up as servants – or worse – in white households. Despite loud and long complaints, kidnapping of Aboriginal children continued into the 20th century unpunished in Queensland.
Protests led to inquiries. This is where we honed our national skill in ventilating disgust without taking any useful action. In the first century of settlement, inquiries were held into everything agitating the colonists – from bushrangers to scab in sheep. But no issue was inquired into so often as the condition of the Aboriginal people and the workings of the Native Police.……………… Australians are beginning to face the question of what it does to the soul of a country that its foundations rest first in conquest and then in crime. I hear those crimes being defended in the referendum debate as the yes campaign is condemned as woke, ignorant and expensive – while the voice is attacked as a privilege Aboriginal Australians don’t deserve.
Behind it all I hear old familiar voices growling that nothing is owed to the native peoples of Australia, nothing at all for the continent we took from them. Absolutely nothing. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/01/the-hatred-and-greed-of-th... @indo here’s a headline you will love , pity the article is paywalled . https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/albanese-just-spent-364-million-...
indo-dreaming wrote:Wow it' quite amazing at that stage in time over 50 years ago the vote was so high it's a figure i would have expected today not back then.
Certainly goes against the picture some like to paint of Australia and Australians.
Geez Indo having a squiz back at some older posts, and i came across this one.
Was in reference to the almost overwhelming majority Yes vote in the 1967 referendum.
Kinda stood out.
AndyM wrote:“prove me wrong that culture is not a driver of many issues in both remote indigenous communities and PNG”
At least you’ve stopped denying what you’ve said previously.
We can’t handle the truth, right Indo?
haha, the skank sniffers are out.. indo's political kavorka is unbelievable..
just be grateful he gives you an ongoing insight into how many average Aussies think.
(now, bad-Andy, indo is not coming out to play for a while, you have upset him, he has been working on nuance, and has been doing well. he learns a lot about the world through these forums, and likes hearing from people with different views, though he would never say it.)
- congrats on the afl win, indo, and I agree re Kiss! Seemed solid as, in scorching heat, surrounded by fire, in heels no less??
Here’s some more confronting stories to ignore
At 1.05 minutes goes into why I believe the voice is needed. Why base racism is at the heart of too many government decisions. This shit has been sprouted in the media throughout this dirty NO campaign.
Maybe if we knew how this disgusting government decision played out on the ground we wouldn’t be so quick to support such measures. We’d never tolerate it! But then again we would never be subjected to it. Would we?
Now at 1.32 minutes
The children are still being taken. Numbers are staggering. How are these decisions being made? Why aren’t people being informed why and of their rights?
Obviously I haven’t fact checked this but it screams to me why a Voice is needed.
https://m.
&pp=ygUXS2luZyBzdGluZ3JheSBsb25nIHRpbWU%3D AndyM wrote:AndyM wrote:“prove me wrong that culture is not a driver of many issues in both remote indigenous communities and PNG”
At least you’ve stopped denying what you’ve said previously.
We can’t handle the truth, right Indo?
Well zero surprise you havent brought any counter argument, while ive brought this up many times there has only every been one person that has tried Brutus, and he did somehow try to argue even in PNG its was linked to colonisation, but obviously his argument was very weak and it became even weaker when we started looking at Indonesia and how it doesn't have the same issues at anywhere near the same rates but was much more affected by colonisation for a very very long time.
Anyway im not dissing Brutus, i agree with close to zero with him, its actually a pity he isnt involved in this voice conversation, for the most part ive had good civil debates with him.
And sorry no i have NEVER denied anything, what ive had a problem with is you twisting my thoughts packaged into one line trying to demonise me.
Its even worse because when i do challenge you on the topic, you are not up for it.
In regard to "cant handle the truth"
Yes i think this is true, i think it makes you become uncomfortable to did deeper, its strange but for many they feel much more comfortable beleving things were all great and peaceful and then white man came along and suddenly rates of violence magically sky rocketed and all these other issues appeared.
Yeah sure Alcohol has added fuel to things but its not a driver, neither is colonisation.
Where is Brutus?
He was a brilliant contributor to this topic, and offered a perspective not many here have.
And just because you thought his arguments were weak Indo, doesn't necessarily mean they are.
Keep in mind that's your perspective.
I thought he had a brilliant insight into many things related to this topic....i think he just got tired of butting his head against a wall with you on this particular subject.
@seeds, yep agree mate. Here's something else to add onto what you posted earlier.
Contrary to the opposers on here claiming that people like myself are trying to 'victimise' indigenous people, the reality is, i don't have to try to do anything. Just stating facts as evidence for why change is needed.
History doesn't lie. (well it did, and that's part of the problem)
'White superiority
This approach was founded on the assumption of black inferiority and white superiority. The assimilation approach was outlined at the Initial Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Authorities in 1937:
"This Conference believes that the destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin (sic), but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth, and it therefore recommends that all efforts be directed to that end...The policy of the Commonwealth is to do everything possible to convert the half-caste into a white citizen.” [1]
Assimilation policies presumed that Indigenous Australians could enjoy the same standard of living as white Australians if they adopted European customs and beliefs and were absorbed into white society:
“The policy of assimilation means in the view of all Australian governments that all Aborigines and part-Aborigines are expected eventually to attain the same manner of living as other Australians and to live as members of a single Australian community enjoying the same rights and privileges, accepting the same responsibilities, observing the same customs and influenced by the same beliefs, hopes and loyalties as other Australians.” [2]
However, in practice, assimilation further undermined Indigenous identity and culture and justified the dispossession of Indigenous people and the removal of Indigenous children from their parents. According to leading Indigenous academic, Professor Michael Dodson,
“Assimilation relied on the well-established and widely-accepted view that we were inferior to white Australians, that our way of life, our culture and our languages were substandard... Embedded within the policy of assimilation was a clear expectation of the cultural extinction of Indigenous peoples.” [3]'
edit. :argh the link doesn't work anymore, but it was part of an older post. Not sure where you can find it now. Apologies for that. Will try to hunt it down.
Can't find the original link but here's a speech from the above fella, Dodson.
https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/speeches/assimilation-versus-self-...
Well worth a read. Would appeal to Indo and co to read it.
And yeah. Well done to the Pies and Bobby Hill yesterday. (although Brisbane robbed by umps in last minute). Still the most deserving team won.
Kinda ironic that an indigenous fella won the Normy eh Indo?
So how do you categorize him? A champion??
Is he in danger of getting booed off the stadiums if he were to stand up and support the voice or any other indigenous affairs?
Indo
Go and watch the YouTube doco I put up. Fast forward to 1 hour and 5 minutes. Have a look.
southernraw wrote:Where is Brutus?
He was a brilliant contributor to this topic, and offered a perspective not many here have.
And just because you thought his arguments were weak Indo, doesn't necessarily mean they are.
Keep in mind that's your perspective.
I thought he had a brilliant insight into many things related to this topic....i think he just got tired of butting his head against a wall with you on this particular subject.
Lets be clear when i said his argument was weak, i was only meaning on this particular topic, when he tried to do the impossible and claim issues around violence in PNG were not rooted in culture but somehow an effect of colonialism.
Generally speaking while i rarely agreed with him, his thoughts were generally thought out and more just opinions that we disagreed with.
Like i said i like the guy not only for what he has achieved in the real world and what i know of him through videos etc, but i just thought the way he conducted himself here in debates was of good character, me and him could have a debate even get heated but get to an end point that didn't blow up, and almost agree to disagree shake hands and walk away, well that's how it felt to me.
Although that said he seemed to be good with me, while im sure someone like Blowin would agree he seemed to treat him differently in a negative way for some reason
I could be wrong but i think he got banned at one point for incidents in the religion thread, but i didnt see it, personally i was surprised as didnt think/feel a one off incident would result in that (unlike longer patterns of behaviour with tipping points) but yeah thats just my opinion and not our call.
Brutus is Banned but can still Post as Sharkman .
seeds wrote:Indo
Go and watch the YouTube doco I put up. Fast forward to 1 hour and 5 minutes. Have a look.
I did, but im not sure what your point is?
The bit about housing?
A mate i use to work with/for actually went up north to build Aboriginal housing in some remote community for about a year, he is not full on left wing but still left wing, influenced a lot my musicians views might even vote Green not sure.
He told me he went up there stoked on the job real positive and motivated happy to be getting paid decent money but also just doing something positive for the community.
However he said he came back kind of disillusioned, because he said the places often got trashed within weeks to months.
BTW. I will watch the whole video when i get a chance it looked interesting
Hoping you might have given it at least a minute. To be exact 1.05.50secs
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