The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
I was watching the game and the commentators didn't know, but one of them said he heard that he had injured his knee. This was early in the game, so no one knew then. It was after the game that the real reason came out. I'm pretty sure Quentin has been out injured a bit lately. Maybe he isn't fully over a knee injury and the action of kneeling causes pain? And that's what the commentator overheard? I dunno. Probably the only excuse that could save him. But it isn't a good look
I am not really up with this bending the knee business .
It was , I believe , in support for BLM . I support the view to support this cause ..
In the US it caused a feeling that kneeling during the national anthem was a sign of disrespect to the country . I can understand that . I don't think it was successful causing attendances to football games to plummet .
It stopped ( or in not news now ) .
If Quentin de Kock refused to kneel in support for BLM during the playing of his countries national anthem he has my full support . The South African anthem changed after apartheid ended .
The cause of BLM can be supported without disrespecting one's country imo .
Weird situation, nobody should be shamed or forced into bending a knee or anything similar no matter what the issue is for, making it compulsory is wrong and takes away from any meaning anyway, it should be a personal choice, in the same way for example an indigenous AFL player or any other AFL players should be free not to sing the national anthem if they choose.
BTW. Just because he doesn't want to bend a knee doesn't at all mean he is racist either, seems it's more about the principle of choice.
He might also be opposed to other associated BLM ideology's the whole marxism thing, deconstruction of the family unit, and the whole anti capitalist anti establishment thing, or just the general divisiveness of the movement, either for political, social or religious reasons..
Wow ID, you really have a talent for taking a pretty simple concept and then interpreting it in a bizarre way.
Yes Taking a knee was about police brutality in the USA when Colin Kaepernick started doing it in 2016.
Sports people and teams from outside the USA have been taking a knee to show fans that racism is not acceptable in sport. Not from the fans, not from the players. It really isn't that difficult to understand, but you start chucking in Marxism and BLM for a South African athlete. You've even suggested de Kok is worried about the "deconstruction of the family unit". FFS that is just ridiculous.
When players take a knee they stand in solidarity with their team mates and for equality. When de Kok refuses to take a knee he is sending a clear message he doesn't care about these ideals.
Go read Michael Holdings Why we kneel How we rise. You might actually learn why players from across the globe are taking knees. Hint. It's got fuck all to do with marxism and family units.
Viclocal - Indo said MIGHT . Like Brutus inferred it might be racist . FFS Talk about "all guns blazing ".
Please take a chill pill before you log onto SN .
The fans in the US stopped going to games . They MIGHT have thought bending the knee during their countries anthem disrespectful .
I wouldn't bend my knee or raise my fist in support of BLM during our anthem . I bet it doesn't catch on during our AFL games . If it is tried I bet it goes down like a lead balloon .
The South African cricket team taking a knee has nothing to do with BLM, or disrespecting anthems or veterans (another Trump piece of BS).
Professional athletes (with a few exceptions) have been taking a knee simply to show fans that racism is not acceptable in sport. It's not a complex message. They don't do it as part of some marxist plot or a desire to rip apart family units as ID seems to be suggesting.
You'd think that not tolerating racism in sport is something everyone could agree on, but it's a bridge too far for you and ID.
1968 Mexico Olympics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute
@Vic Local
Read my post again: i say "He MIGHT also be opposed " notice the word might?
Im not saying thats the reasons, im saying it could be, as the action is now linked to BLM as Brutus above has mentioned and BLM is linked to many marxist aspects, their leaders openly admit being trained marxist and website even said they were for the deconstruction of the traditional family unit, which is completely ironic seeing fartherless is often a real problem in communities around the world that have issues, also anti capitalism anti establishment.
By not taking a knee DOES NOT at all mean he is standing against the ideal of being against racism, he has said himself he is against being forced to partake, which is completely understandable, and the irony is being forced to partake instead of being a choice completely takes any meaning away from the gesture.
But i dont expect people like you to understand, you're a complete nutcase, the type of person that claims to be against racism but actually incites division between race's, you cant even have a mature discussion about immigration or China without calling everyone racist.
Vic - you love to jump too far . I don't tolerate racism .
If anyone tries to make any political statement during their national anthem it is wrong imo and obviously in the opinion of US football fans .
Imagine one of our cricketers doing it on Boxing Day at the G . The crowd would let them know VERY quickly how they feel . How do you think this would go down Vic ?
Smiley- I was referring to 68 Olympics when I said raise a fist. I should have made it more clear to save you some time .
I don't tolerate racism.
but you can't accept a very simple pre-game anti-racism gesture by the players. Geez mate, are you going to be ok, or do we need to set up some support mechanism for you the next time players do it?
Oh and ID, maybe Quniton de Kok doesn't support taking a knee because he might be upset apart the price of seafood. Have you worked out how stupid your family unit / marxism suggestion is yet?
Its up to him to give reasons for not taking a knee, im just pointing out there is a whole host of reasons.
IMHO you are the most racist person here, very divisive.
Vic - I don't think it helps their causes but the US fans didn't like it . The fans at the G will be VERY unhappy if it happens on Boxing Day .
You might think disrespecting your country just a simple pregame gesture but many don't as proved .
It was the owners of the US clubs that needed the support mechanism .
As I said at the start I am not emotionally involved in this issue .
I only commented as I thought it unfair that Brutus thought the action of De kock was racist as he was a White person . Which I also said might be racist .
indo-dreaming wrote:Its up to him to give reasons for not taking a knee, im just pointing out there is a whole host of reasons.
IMHO you are the most racist person here, very divisive.
Indo , yeah there could be a whole host of reasons why De Kock refused to take a knee...on one hand he show's balls in putting his career on the line in not following team orders ......but on the other hand he should come out and explain himself and his position.
If he chooses not to make a public statement explaining his actions.....well all the rumour /innuendo speculation , supposition which has now distracted all of us from a game of T20 cricket....he surely knew that his actions would be World headlines.....so c'mon Quinton manup and clear the air.
As for your silly BLM comments , lets just leave it at that...silly , and calling VL the biggest racist on SN.....that's your perspective, from mine I think you are which make very interesting conversations...like the White Australia policy claim.....ah that was 50 years ago......sad , and it looks like you are still an Australian trying to assimilate into our ever evolving Australian National identity......might take you and your family a few more generations , but there is no stopping the path we are now on!
Just going back 12 months was there ever a reason given for the Wallabies deciding not to take the knee in their Bledisloe Cup match against New Zealand?? I know they wore a First Nations jumper to respect and reflect Australia's history but decided against taking the knee.
I’d take a knee for a genuine anti racist cause because personally I don’t even understand racism. It’s the most stupid mentality on earth. I would not take a knee for the BLM movement because it’s a Marxist trouble making movement and designed to deliberately divide and destabilise. Look at the riots in the US…they were raiding black guys stores for goodness sake. If the tree has rotten roots it’ll never be good. The founders have embezzled a lot of the cash as well. There are better ways and if the US was so racist why did they elect a black president?..I don’t know…all seems like a diversion and nonsense to me.
Good post Optimist 100% agree
No matter the cause or issue an expression or gesture such as this should be a choice and not forced onto someone or even made to feel bad or guilty if they don't participate.
Like i said that goes for singing a national anthem, or bowing a head in prayer or bending a knee for soldiers or racism or whatever, it should all be a choice and not forced on the player.
This is the problem when you bring politics and social issues into sports, on field it should be free of these things, off field players should be able to express themselves as they wish be it being a crazy Antifa member (that doesn't break the law), or super religious Christian or muslim that may not share beliefs most of us agree with, or whatever as long as it's legal. (kind of ties in with that Ruby league player, forgot his name)
Bizarre call on VL Indo. From everything I've ever read of his he abhors racism and calls it out at every opportunity.Which I admire. Bizarre call.
bluediamond wrote:Bizarre call on VL Indo. From everything I've ever read of his he abhors racism and calls it out at every opportunity.Which I admire. Bizarre call.
Indo doesn't understand racism, particularly the power dynamics involved.
nah, he's about right
about vicvocal anyway...
From bluediamond
“ There are severe distractors, as soon as the conversation gets moving along.
Blowin, indo, blindboy, andy m, goofyfoot, d rex, old dog, hutchy19 and a few ive definitely forgotten. The same old pot-shots and the same old distractive techniques to move the conversation away from any real meaningful progress.”
Also from blue diamond
“ Bizarre call on VL Indo. From everything I've ever read of his he abhors racism and calls it out at every opportunity.Which I admire. Bizarre call.”
Going well there mate, keep up the meaningful conversation.
Hiccups wrote:bluediamond wrote:Bizarre call on VL Indo. From everything I've ever read of his he abhors racism and calls it out at every opportunity.Which I admire. Bizarre call.
Indo doesn't understand racism, particularly the power dynamics involved.
There’s no power dynamics involved. Not unless you try to redefine racism as you appear to be doing. Racism is discrimination -treating someone differently in a negative way- based on the colour of someone’s skin. That’s it and that’s all.
Optimist wrote:I’d take a knee for a genuine anti racist cause because personally I don’t even understand racism. It’s the most stupid mentality on earth. I would not take a knee for the BLM movement because it’s a Marxist trouble making movement and designed to deliberately divide and destabilise. Look at the riots in the US…they were raiding black guys stores for goodness sake. If the tree has rotten roots it’ll never be good. The founders have embezzled a lot of the cash as well. There are better ways and if the US was so racist why did they elect a black president?..I don’t know…all seems like a diversion and nonsense to me.
optimist , I guess we see the BLM completely different . I see the principle of recognizing of the minority groups who were first brought to the USA as slaves, and have been persecuted since for just being black....to the point where white police were disproportionately killing blacks....same as in Australia....that's why I loved how Paddy Mills actually dealt with BLM...and I just don't buy into the nonsense of the looting and Marxist ideology and really because there was a Black president , racism doesn't exist? Trump came after Obama I think that says it all....
I know one thing Optimist , Jesus would be a lot closer to Marxism/communism than the current capitalistic society we live in!
Ahh, no Kapish GF. Might have struck a nerve there?? Saying someone calls out racism on a thread about, ultimately race relations in Australia. Not up to your standards? Might just put it down to another GF potshot. Always seems to be when you're defending indo. Cute.
Would Jesus take a knee or would he consider it tokenism?
Maybe he would have just walked the walk, so to speak.
Christian socialism isn’t anything like that Brutus….and free choice…that’s fundamental , even God himself doesn’t force issues. Respect has to be earned not demanded. Everyone has to just get along and the bible says the authorities including police are no issue to those doing the right thing and living in peace and harmony. Everyone finds a place and opportunities open up with the right mindset. One of my old best friends was the most beaten, impoverished and abused children from a Latvian orphanage. He knew God, held no grudges, moved on and became a top US scientist and one of the worlds great chess players.
Jesus was brown facto….and nobody really cares about colour because it’s just environmental tint….good tree good fruit…bad tree bad fruit…Jesus.
brutus wrote:...to the point where white police were disproportionately killing blacks....same as in Australia....that's why I loved how Paddy Mills
Sorry it's NOT the same in Australia, it's been pointed out many times before that the Royal commission into deaths in custody found Indigenous people were slightly less likely to die in custody, the trend since has only backed this up further.
Saying a lie enough, DOES NOT make it the truth.
Deaths in custody also rarely equal death as a cause of a police officer or guard, in most cases when it is, it's due to a police chase gone wrong or something similar, the cases where there is indent especial racial motivated are rarer than hens teeth...
indo-dreaming wrote:brutus wrote:...to the point where white police were disproportionately killing blacks....same as in Australia....that's why I loved how Paddy Mills
Sorry it's NOT the same in Australia, it's been pointed out many times before that the Royal commission into deaths in custody found Indigenous people were slightly less likely to die in custody, the trend since has only backed this up further.
Saying a lie enough, DOES NOT make it the truth.
Deaths in custody also rarely equal death as a cause of a police officer or guard, in most cases when it is, it's due to a police chase gone wrong.
It’s statistically untrue in the USA also.
WDYGFYC?
In my view all the discussion on this topic here is just a tiny part of our ongoing culture wars, where people sit on this topic could be reasonably predetermined by knowing who they typically vote for.
No difference on this issue to many - 18c, Adam Goodes, Indigenous identity, a treaty, the Uluru Statement of the heart etc etc. We have all been here before.
New fronts on the culture wars emerge without warning, seemingly out of thin air ..... just yesterday it emerged our Federal Govt is considering legislation requiring people to produce identity before they are allowed to vote because of "feared voter fraud". Now the Australian Electoral Commission says it doesn't occur here so why the need?
Another slice of cultural war pie anyone? It would be unAustralian not to eat up.
zenagain wrote:Would Jesus take a knee or would he consider it tokenism?
Maybe he would have just walked the walk, so to speak.
He might have started taking a knee ?
Maybe just so he could get closer to those dirty toes when washing a few feet before dinner.
Optimist wrote:Christian socialism isn’t anything like that Brutus….and free choice…that’s fundamental , even God himself doesn’t force issues. Respect has to be earned not demanded. Everyone has to just get along and the bible says the authorities including police are no issue to those doing the right thing and living in peace and harmony. Everyone finds a place and opportunities open up with the right mindset. One of my old best friends was the most beaten, impoverished and abused children from a Latvian orphanage. He knew God, held no grudges, moved on and became a top US scientist and one of the worlds great chess players.
I am not talking about individuals , but the different political systems we have such as Democracy/capitalism ( explain lobby groups in a democracy ) , Communism/socialism........not sure how Jesus would see the mantra " profit is first and foremost the most important business principle for public Co's !" not all men and women are equal......then there's the crazy white evangelists doing the enemy's work.....
.I love this verse , "“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
100% its part of culture wars and movements like BLM use issues like racism as a smoke screen to gain power and push marxist agendas.
Thats why it's not a simple as saying you support BLM you are for anti racism, you're against BLM your racist.
There is so much more to it than that, thats why people need to understand the whole picture and the real aim of these organisations.
BTW. This is a great video on the issue
&t=1804s zenagain wrote:Maybe just so he could get closer to those dirty toes when washing a few feet before dinner.
which he did...washed the feet of others .......
Optimist wrote:Jesus was brown facto….and nobody really cares about colour because it’s just environmental tint….good tree good fruit…bad tree bad fruit…Jesus.
but in todays world he was an Arab!
indo-dreaming wrote:brutus wrote:...to the point where white police were disproportionately killing blacks....same as in Australia....that's why I loved how Paddy Mills
Sorry it's NOT the same in Australia, it's been pointed out many times before that the Royal commission into deaths in custody found Indigenous people were slightly less likely to die in custody, the trend since has only backed this up further.
Saying a lie enough, DOES NOT make it the truth.
Deaths in custody also rarely equal death as a cause of a police officer or guard, in most cases when it is, it's due to a police chase gone wrong or something similar, the cases where there is indent especial racial motivated are rarer than hens teeth...
Indo , you are right about the deaths in custody , a bit less than white people killed in custody....so I apologise , but where I got a bit confused is with 29% of Australia's prison population is made up Indigenous people .....which is pretty damn sad
Constance B Gibson wrote:Yay! Blowindo! B.I.T
Let the RA meeting commence...
And Opto, I hear ya, brother...
how tiring to see religious vilification ....racial vilification.....same old same old....well done Constance!!
Brutus - "how tiring to see religious vilification ....racial vilification.....same old same old.."
I agree and will add Capitalism vilification ( have a go at giving another system that's better . Even China realised it was the best system to dive their development ).
Colonialism vilification - especially the English version . ( You do know all of England was colonialised / invaded by the Vikings and Normans don't you ? No wonder the Poms hate the French . China were invaded many times . All powers explore for other lands . Do you think they all should have agreed to leave Australia alone when they didn't even know it existed or had people on it .)
Time to relax with your vilification as , as you say , it's tiring . Same old , same old .
Brutus, I like that scripture too…very relevant for today. The “ eye of the needle “ was a gate in the Jerusalem wall. If a merchant wanted to take their camel through that particular gate they had to unload it and take it through on its knees.. In other words , they had to lose their baggage before they could pass through. Looking deeper, this could mean not only materialism and the cares of this world which hinder our walk with God , but maybe the parable suits old grudges as well.
Optimist wrote:Brutus, I like that scripture too…very relevant for today. The “ eye of the needle “ was a gate in the Jerusalem wall. If a merchant wanted to take their camel through that particular gate they had to unload it and take it through on its knees.. In other words , they had to lose their baggage before they could pass through. Looking deeper, this could mean not only materialism and the cares of this world which hinder our walk with God , but maybe the parable suits old grudges as well.
Optomist ....I think we are talking about the materialism of the secular world , which when you look at where we are at , the World seems to getting more and more materialistic , more me me ...social media etc.....selfies etc......
and yeah I think you are probably talking about me holding grudges .....which really has a negative affect on your life.....and that's why forgiveness is paramount in any part of life now.......and it's all about spiritual awareness and basing your life on God /Jesus/The Holy spirit....meanwhile it ain't easy taking the spiritual route haha.....
Your a good man Brutus, you care about people and that’s all you need in your walk with the chief. Tough going and challenging sometimes but has a cracking super plan. Sometimes I just want to slap people and am bewildered daily about the pathetic materialistic nature of mankind. But along comes the chief with His forgive forgive forgive…whattya do …can’t argue with the boss He has a 12 dimensional plan. Too hard to figure everything out.
"In my view all the discussion on this topic here is just a tiny part of our ongoing culture wars, where people sit on this topic could be reasonably predetermined by knowing who they typically vote for.
No difference on this issue to many - 18c, Adam Goodes, Indigenous identity, a treaty, the Uluru Statement of the heart etc etc. We have all been here before.
New fronts on the culture wars emerge without warning, seemingly out of thin air ..... just yesterday it emerged our Federal Govt is considering legislation requiring people to produce identity before they are allowed to vote because of "feared voter fraud". Now the Australian Electoral Commission says it doesn't occur here so why the need?
Another slice of cultural war pie anyone? It would be unAustralian not to eat up.
I reckon you are wrong, about 'culture war' and who people typically vote for...
'the left'... 'the fake left' anyway... just need to tone down some of the more ridiculous parts of their culture war and people wouldn't find them so laughable...
I read comnents on here and I am surprised, or at least somewhat encouraged... that most people agree on a hell of a lot of things, yet they will argue vehemently about some of the excesses of identity politics...
fuck if the left abandoned all that neo-marxist bulkshit, they'd even have people like indod and blowin voting for them again...
and might actually win an election again
which is kinda required if want to get anything done...
re. blm...
I think the best thing aboriginal people could do is just walk away from all that bullshit
aside from being totally seppo and cringeworthy... it's totally built around false premise in the US, and an even falser one here... as evidenced above...
that doesn't mean I don't support aboriginal causes, or that I am somehow 'racist' for not submitting, or bowing to, or kneeling to... or something...
it just means that whenever I see an aussie - be they black or white - flogging the blm / white fragility indoctrination, ...all I 've got is a massive internal eye roll...
and switch goes to off
"Would Jesus take a knee or would he consider it tokenism?
Maybe he would have just walked the walk, so to speak."
or just walk away...
too much toxicity and bullying and shit...
Heres an Aboriginal influenced vid with some huge Gnaraloo. very worth a watch.
sypkan wrote:re. blm...
I think the best thing aboriginal people could do is just walk away from all that bullshit
aside from being totally seppo and cringeworthy... it's totally built around false premise in the US, and an even falser one here... as evidenced above...
that doesn't mean I don't support aboriginal causes, or that I am somehow 'racist' for not submitting, or bowing to, or kneeling to... or something...
it just means that whenever I see an aussie - be they black or white - flogging the blm / white fragility indoctrination, ...all I 've got is a massive internal eye roll...
and switch goes to off
100% agree
"Of course you do, id. Surprise!"
Indo Dreaming is definitely in the "shut up darkie and be thankful for what you've got" corner. A short dignified gesture at the start of a sporting contest, saying racism will not be tolerated by our team, is just too much for him to cope with.
Keep studying Facto and you’ll understand what the sword is.
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