The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Paul McD wrote:http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/news/2000s/2000/smh25mar2000.html
PaulMcD. Hi mate. Good article,thanks.
"so don't say a thing if you don't wanna go to war"
And who could blame the anger.....DEADLY. Crew on here in denial still don't understand what deadly represents. It's the mirror you refuse to look in.
or you could say a thousand meaningless uneducated and barbed comments like the previous poster...... .. war would be completely justified. I have chosen my side. The side of right. The usual slime on here will take that statement as a trigger.
Instead its the respect and recognition of humans. Suffering humans who do not need to suffer if not just for a change of perspective, a change of ideas.
Heal the past before you move forward. Not fight fire with fire, because we can expect the same consequences. The same ones this dogmatic structured institutionalised white system of the monarch has enforced for 200 years. At the expense of Indigenous Australians!! In their own country!!!!!!! Could you believe that!?
Time to give!!!!!! Reparation is not a dollar sign. It's giving and sacrficing what YOU 'believe' to be rightfully YOUR'S, where morally you know that deep down it was never yours to begin with.
Anyway, this songs dedicated to Goodsy...or was it Cyril, no i mean Eddy. And that's just a few years of bloody footy!! Imagine the real world! ha! Actually don't, no one want's to do that do they? Better just make a new policy eh??
Gday Alfred Wallace. Thanks mate.
btw the comment about the above commenter obviously wasn't you,.....10 guesses....although you'll only need one or maybe 3 for who it was. They walk amongst us!!!!! haha
Hope you're going well mate.
Cheers
Rachel Perkins journeys across the country to explore the bloody battles fought on Australian soil and the war that established the Australian nation, seeking to change the narrative of the nation. https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/watch/2067619395917 episode 1
Cheers Supa.
The Australian wars SBS episode 2 https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/watch/2069968963813
The Australian War Memorial has announced it will develop a 'much broader' and 'deeper' recognition of the Frontier Wars, the bloody conflicts fought between British colonialists and the sovereign First Nations following the 1788 invasion.
The War Memorial, which currently has no dedicated section to the only wars ever fought on this continent's soil, has been under building pressure to give greater acknowledgement to the significant and protracted battles fought across the mainland and lutruwita (Tasmania) across the for more than a century.
It comes as a new SBS/NITV documentary series exploring the dark era, The Australian Wars, attracts greater scrutiny of the period, and the lack of national awareness around it. https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/rachel-perkins-welcomes-war-memorial...
Yeah I heard this tonight @Supafreak great news and not before time!!
Yeah I heard this tonight @Supafreak great news and not before time!!
Hi, PaulMcD,Supafreak,GuySmiley. Excellent news, Let’s hope this is just the start of something that ‘holds our heads up as a nation’ and show meaningful respect to those events and the people affected.
Australian wars episode 3 https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/watch/2072687171882
Supafreak. Thanks. Interesting stuff.
Credlin the Cretin
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp is running an all out assault against the undertaking to include the Frontier Wars in the Australian War Memorial.
— ☮️💧 Sleeping Giants Oz 📣 (@slpng_giants_oz) October 16, 2022
The appalling headlines & misleading content delivered by Peta Credlin are a disgrace!#Auspol #ThisIsNotJournalism pic.twitter.com/qwGWZzGCkK
Disappointing isn’t it.
Historically and in their reality the locals were fighting wars against invaders. The invaders considered the locals didn’t even (humanly or legally)exist.
Turkey shoot anyone?
I dont have any issue with this.
But id be curious how they determine what a war is?
How many people does the conflict have to involve?
Also if they recognises conflicts between settlers and Indigenous people id hope they are also acknowledging conflicts and deaths between different indigenous mobs through the same period of history or even further back.
Otherwise we are getting an inaccurate politically tainted acknowledgment of history.
You’re an imbecile @info
GuySmiley wrote:You’re an imbecile @info
Your last three comments in different threads I've seen have just been insults and mocking people when people are actually trying to have proper discussions.
I think this speaks loudly about who the imbecile is, if you were so clever, you would go.
Well Indo or well Sypkan and engage in conversation bring a point of view or a counter argument or in this case answer the questions asked.
Of course you will say, but i dont have the time to explain or engage with (insert some insult)
Well then fine, if you dont want to have a proper discussion then just dont comment at all, because I'm really not interested in having some childish back and forth insult thing with some old man who sat behind a desk all his life and thinks he is above everyone.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
war
"a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country."
Gotta hand it to you @info thinking your latest brain fart remotely passes for “proper discussion”. You’re joking right?
I have to say Indo your last comment was wide of the mark.
False equivalence.
But you have inadvertently pointed out that the continent had established nations. Therefore defined borders and ownership. Culture and law. And as you said there no doubt was clashes between nations but I don’t ever remember reading that conquest and genocide was ever the purpose of these
wars if that’s what you want to call them.
You seem to be suggesting that as the established nations had conflict therefore an invading peoples from far away were justified doing what they did.
@ Seeds
Your going off topic, the discussion is not about if colonisation was right or wrong or justified or feelings around it, that's a different discussion
The topic is about what is classed as a war or wars and if its determined a war then yeah sure add it to the memorial .
I focus wrote:Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languageswar
"a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country."
Yep so we can all agree we can use the word war or wars as an umbrella term for conflict between Indigenous people and colonist, even if these conflicts varied hugely in size and often not battles as such like spearing of livestock by indigenous people that then saw colonist seek revenge, and then sometimes even colonist dealt with by the law and even hung for their actions. (as the above article that trigger this discussion points out)
We all agree on this yes, and also all agree that if these incident are determined a war or wars then yeah sure it can fit in the memorial
If we agree with this broad term of a war, wars, then surely we can also agree that conflicts between different indigenous groups in this era and for thousands of years before colonisation where indigenous groups often clashed and fought over women, or resources or boundary's often in a more traditional warfare sense, even in some cases using shields for protection (that can even be seen in museums today), then surely we can also calls these wars???
Yes or no?
If we acknowledge one group of conflict as wars and agree they can be added to the memorial, then I love to hear a decent counter argument why the other conflicts were not wars? and love to hear why they should not be acknowledged in the memorial????
I’m off topic because you consider a comment you made yesterday is now a and or the discussion? Let’s not forget the title and first comment of this thread. Your point of wars between indigenous nations is fair enough but the purpose of these was not to take over entirely the lands of others and it certainly wasn’t to try and eradicate the people of other nations entirely.
FFS one meets the definition of war the other are conflicts stemming from breaches in tribal law or other words genocide v breaches in criminal law
Stop being so succinct GS. You’ll get accused of trolling.
Yep but as we know #there’salwaysanothercomment
Traditionally the war memorial was for remembrance and acknowledgment of Australian military in wars/military conflicts/operations , the reason for the wars being irrelevant and range over a whole host of issues as wars do.
This seems to be being redefined for non military conflicts on Australian soil as in the so called frontier wars which i personally dont really have an issue with but some do even those of military standing and the RSL national president, although they probably do have a point that a seperate memorial would make more sense.
If you are going too change the approach and definition which is quite a big change and acknowledge the so called frontier wars, which is an extremely broad umbrella term that includes all kinds of events, then its a no brainer that you would also included and acknowledge actual more traditional type wars between indigenous groups going back thousands of years.
Wars that were over a range of issues and NOT just broken tribal law (which varied between areas anyway)
And of course there is no new rule that says, any war can be included but just not ones that involve tribal law.
@indo , are you say that the military weren’t used in the frontier wars ? that you also refer to as “ so called frontier wars “
You’re an imbecile @info
seeds wrote:You’re an imbecile @info
Look mate, it's a well know fact that when people start throwing around insults it's because they know they dont have a proper argument and know they have lost the debate.
Is very clear that you have no counter argument at all.
Yawn!! No I retract those exclamation marks. Yawn.
!!!!!!!!!!
Supafreak wrote:@indo , are you say that the military weren’t used in the frontier wars ? that you also refer to as “ so called frontier wars “
The incidents that the umbrella term Frontier wars, involved indigenous people and settlers and police and yes people you could classify as military. (brain fade forgot what they are called in that era)
I guess you could even say indigenous warriors with shields and spears were also military.
It's actually a decent point to look a it that way though, but as i said I'm happy to acknowledge both as wars, but if you acknowledge conflict between indigenous people and colonialist as wars, then you also have to acknowledge conflict between tribes as wars too and if add a memorial one must add a memorial for the other, if you cross that bridge you can't seperate the two they a too similar.
Even Seeds acknowledged above indigenous vs indigenous conflicts were also wars which painted himself into a corner which meant he had no chance of a come back, hence the frustration and insults.
Is that what I did Indo? You really do create the narrative you like.
Look out @info is changing the goal posts again
Hey @info your village called….
Look out @info is changing the goal posts again
Hey @info your village called….
indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:@indo , are you say that the military weren’t used in the frontier wars ? that you also refer to as “ so called frontier wars “
The incidents that the umbrella term Frontier wars, involved indigenous people and settlers and police and yes people you could classify as military. (brain fade forgo what they are called in that era)
I guess you could even say indigenous warriors with shields and spears were also military.
It's actually a decent point to look a it that way though, but as i said I'm happy to acknowledge both as wars, but if you acknowledge conflict between indigenous people and colonialist as wars, then you also have to acknowledge conflict between tribes as wars too.
As Seeds did above which painted himself into a corner.
The frontier wars are not commemorated at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. The Memorial argues that the Australian frontier fighting is outside its charter as it did not involve Australian military forces. This position is supported by the Returned and Services League of Australia but is opposed by many historians, including Geoffrey Blainey, Gordon Briscoe, John Coates, John Connor, Ken Inglis, Michael McKernan and Peter Stanley. These historians argue that the fighting should be commemorated at the Memorial as it involved large numbers of Indigenous Australians and paramilitary Australian units.[58] https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars. Just curious indo if you watched the series on SBS …. Australian wars ?
Like i said guy, everybody knows when people start throwing around insults its because they are defeated, they dont have a counter argument, if you had a decent counter argument, you'd jump on it.
I’m not defeated. What a cop out. What a pathetic self serving comment.
Everybody knows blah blah etc etc and yes Indo it is etc not ect off course
You still don’t get it do you @info unlike any other person on these forums you can’t just make complete and utter shit up, present it as fact and then expect people to constructively engage you in a “proper discussion”.
If it looks and smells like bullshit, well, it’s bullshit and nothing you’ve offered up here is worthy of a considered reply. Again!
Supafreak wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:@indo , are you say that the military weren’t used in the frontier wars ? that you also refer to as “ so called frontier wars “
The incidents that the umbrella term Frontier wars, involved indigenous people and settlers and police and yes people you could classify as military. (brain fade forgo what they are called in that era)
I guess you could even say indigenous warriors with shields and spears were also military.
It's actually a decent point to look a it that way though, but as i said I'm happy to acknowledge both as wars, but if you acknowledge conflict between indigenous people and colonialist as wars, then you also have to acknowledge conflict between tribes as wars too.
As Seeds did above which painted himself into a corner.
The frontier wars are not commemorated at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. The Memorial argues that the Australian frontier fighting is outside its charter as it did not involve Australian military forces. This position is supported by the Returned and Services League of Australia but is opposed by many historians, including Geoffrey Blainey, Gordon Briscoe, John Coates, John Connor, Ken Inglis, Michael McKernan and Peter Stanley. These historians argue that the fighting should be commemorated at the Memorial as it involved large numbers of Indigenous Australians and paramilitary Australian units.[58] https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars. Just curious indo if you watched the series on SBS …. Australian wars ?
No i havent watched it, sounds interesting.
Yes some think it should some think it shouldn't, like i said I'm not against it being acknowledged i just believe if you are going to included the conflicts contained under the umbrella term of frontier wars, then you also need to acknowledge and provide a place for the long history of indigenous vs indigenous conflict/wars.
Thats the problem with all this truth telling stuff its often far from truth telling, it more just acknowledging one aspect of history often not talked about, but generally fails to acknowledge the other aspects like pre colonial indigenous violence, or in colonial era or even violence today.
Real truth telling is exposing all the bit's people dont want to talk about or keep hidden, not just picking and choosing the bits that suit one groups views to create a narrative wanted.
GuySmiley wrote:You still don’t get it do you @info unlike any other person on these forums you can’t just make complete and utter shit up, present it as fact and then expect people to constructively engage you in a “proper discussion”.
If it looks and smells like bullshit, well, it’s bullshit and nothing you’ve offered up here is worthy of a considered reply. Again!
And what exactly have i made up????????????????????????????????????
Quote what i have made up?
My discussion point is about the case that if the frontier wars are acknowledged and given a place in the war memorial, then why shouldn't the long history of indigenous on indigenous wars be acknowledged and also given a place in the memorial???
And i havent as yet heard a decent case as to why, if anyone has come close its Supa definitely not you or Seeds that have only reverted to personal insults and its a very well know fact this is what people do when that have no counter argument, that's not bull shit thats a well known fact.
BTW, Its something you do quite regularly not to just to me but other's like Spkan or Blowin, any time you read something you dont like its just post a silly video or name call.
@indo , Have a look at Australian Wars , 3 x1 hour episodes , it’s a warts and all doco that left me with a variety of emotions, none that were good. I think everyone acknowledges that there were wars amongst the indigenous Australians before the British turned up , same with the Native American Indians . Not sure what your point is for including them in the Australian war memorial is though.
The opening scene had some pretty suspect native gibberish. Ooga booga I think whitey mcfuckhead interpreted it as but it was really complex in the end.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=arse%20hat
This is an interesting one.
Reinharts reply not surprisingly....shes already thrown 300million at the local indigenous crew so shut the hell up, play netball and don't bite the hand that feeds!!!
Been some interesting and refreshing commentary on it in the WA media last few days. Its a curly one.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-18/pressure-building-for-diamonds-ne...
Supafreak wrote:@indo , Have a look at Australian Wars , 3 x1 hour episodes , it’s a warts and all doco that left me with a variety of emotions, none that were good. I think everyone acknowledges that there were wars amongst the indigenous Australians before the British turned up , same with the Native American Indians . Not sure what your point is for including them in the Australian war memorial is though.
Warts and all is good will watch it.
The question is more why wouldn't these wars be added???
Once they have that means all loose ends will be acknowledged and the acknowledgement or all wars involving Australians will be remembered.
A war memorial i guess does a number of things.
1. It acknowledges wars/conflicts that Australians fought in and it educates people.
2. It's a sign of respect and remembrance for those Australians that fought and died.
Thinking about it more, i think all indigenous wars both frontier and between indigenous should be in the same war memorial, not seperate to me the symbolism of one country and one people is important, to seperate in a seperate memorial does the opposite.
BTW. I dont think most people know about wars and conflicts between indigenous people, especially these days, even here there has been people try to claim before colonisation it was a peacefully utopia, to even suggest it was not these days makes you a target.
Anyway you and me have done this conversation pretty well, maybe we should try to just leave it there and agree to disagree if we must rather than start going into done before territory and things get heated.
FFS
Is wilful ignorance a thing these days that passes as acceptable behaviour?
Judging by your comments then yes 100%
Noel Pearson Boyer Lecture
https://iview.abc.net.au/show/boyer-lecture-2022-noel-pearson
.
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