The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NC2201H173S00. Outback Tragedy 7.30 report
Hardly surprising from the nationals.
My response to the decision of the Nationals to oppose the Voice to Parliament.
— Patrick Dodson (@SenatorDodson) November 28, 2022
The Voice is not about politicians. It is an invitation to the Australian people.
I have great confidence in the Australian people to assess the Voice on its own merits. pic.twitter.com/jbDkBrlm6T
Supafreak wrote:Hardly surprising from the nationals. https://twitter.com/senatordodson/status/1597131954713165825?s=46&t=WxMt...
Ha! Yep saw this. My thoughts exactly. Seems we're moving nowhere fast.
What a speech six minutes and no notes, clear concise and on point, amazing women.
Yes you must be proud indo , pity that First Nation people don’t feel the same way about JP as you do.
Supafreak wrote:Yes you must be proud indo , pity that First Nation people don’t feel the same way about JP as you do.
Pat Dodson had some interesting points when interviewed on ABC this afternoon regarding JP.
. https://twitter.com/robertarnol/status/1597166747513417730?s=46&t=WxMt3MT28oMUcmvi8suBBA I think Rob nails it , get JP to do the talking so it doesn’t look racist. She doesn’t mind being a puppet if the price is right .I'd rather listen to Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton about the voice. What have you contributed except for negativity on the matter.
— The Duke (@Deadlyduke7) November 28, 2022
I think she’s going to realise one day when her political life is over that she was used. She’s entitled to her opinions and they may be valid to some but these National crackers couldn’t really care about her opinion in the end. They’re only looking to sure up their vote in their regional electorates regardless of whether the voice gets up or not.
Who would be worried about listening to a voice that has no legislative power? Seriously who?
People who think they have something to lose!
Claiming it would be better off to be regionally dealt with. Why? So it can be shut down as quietly as possible?
Why can’t individual regions have a national voice concerning matters that affect them individually? Why can’t all mobs have, collectively, a national voice on matters that affect them all?
If this doesn’t happen it’s just a continuation of the old power imbalance and the archaic view that the (majority of) well to do white establishment patronisingly decide what’s best for the the the poor old incapable aboriginal.
"I think she’s going to realise one day when her political life is over that she was used."
Not sure that's a valid point. Politicians, by their nature, are used: they're the voice of the people. Just how representative they are is open for debate, but they're all 'used'.
My default setting is to resist the voice to parliament but I'm eager to see just what it entails and how people will see this playing out in five, ten, fifteen years.
Noel Pearson...... Telling it how it is with National Party.
I don’t mean used by the people. I mean, as Noel Pearson suggests in the news this morning, used by the IPA etc.
What are your concerns about the voice Stu?
That it, potentially, divides more than unites. From what I gather it'll be a device used to restore balance - I mean, it wouldn't be needed if we all shared the same standard of living.
So, in a conceptual way, it'll be similar to other social devices, such as, say, quota systems. But where quota systems are understood to have a temporary time frame - lifting minority groups so the younger generation can "be what they see" then voided once parity is reached - introducing legislation is a more permanent measure.
I'm not rock solid on it, but I feel like it's a false path towards unity. I don't think it'll make matters worse, but I also don't believe they'll make them better.
TBH I need to read more about it. Recently my wife explained how some NT laws were catching more Indigenous than white and following a very subtle redrafting of the laws Indig crew weren't being carted off for minor matters. I expect prior consultation, such as The Voice, will correct matters such as that.
For anyone interested in what Noel Pearson had to say on abc radio . https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/noel-pearson-bla...
“I expect prior consultation, such as The Voice, will correct matters such as that.”
This is how I see it. I don’t think we have to over think things.
seeds wrote:I think she’s going to realise one day when her political life is over that she was used. She’s entitled to her opinions and they may be valid to some but these National crackers couldn’t really care about her opinion in the end. They’re only looking to sure up their vote in their regional electorates regardless of whether the voice gets up or not.
Who would be worried about listening to a voice that has no legislative power? Seriously who?
People who think they have something to lose!
Claiming it would be better off to be regionally dealt with. Why? So it can be shut down as quietly as possible?
Why can’t individual regions have a national voice concerning matters that affect them individually? Why can’t all mobs have, collectively, a national voice on matters that affect them all?
If this doesn’t happen it’s just a continuation of the old power imbalance and the archaic view that the (majority of) well to do white establishment patronisingly decide what’s best for the the the poor old incapable aboriginal.
Sorry but that makes no sense at all.
Im sure she is extremely happy to be given a platform and have her voice supported by the party on this issue by doing so it's a huge boost to her profile and her voice on the issue, i highly doubt she will feel used now or in the future.
Quite the opposite, imagine how she would feel if she was ignored by Nationals or LNP now or through her career and then post politics thought, what if i was supported by these parties ??? especially on indigenous related issues.
I dont know her future political aspirations but to me it seems she is growing in stature and confidence and is only 41, so if she has support from parties like Nationals or LNP and wants to keep going in politics and can tough it out, i think she has a good chance she will move from The Country liberal party to either Nationals or LNP and go further in politics.
Well we will have to see her local support at the next election. I see a lot of white fellas supporting her because her views align with theirs but not too many aboriginals. As Stu stated there isn’t enough information about the Voice yet to make an informed decision and yet here we are already with the Nats publicly shitting on it. Why couldn’t the Nats wait on this? Does the CLP support Jacinta’s views? I haven’t seen that anywhere. I suppose they do. I don’t know.
On another note I wonder the voter turnout in the remote aboriginal communities or even Alice or Darwin? I’d suspect apathy and low numbers. Anyone know where to find stats like this.
Hey @indo. Just for the sake of debate, could you mount an argument as to why the Australian government shouldn't be entirely made up of indigenous Australians?
bluediamond wrote:Hey @indo. Just for the sake of debate, could you mount an argument as to why the Australian government shouldn't be entirely made up of indigenous Australians?
Can you mount a reason why it should be?
We’re a pretty multicultural society arent we? Shouldn’t our parliament reflect this?
Yes mate @goofy.
A very simple one. This is their land and their country. Always was and always will be.
Sorry @goofy, didn't see the second part of your post. For sure we are, and i'm all down for multiculturalism, but when it's a painstaking struggle to get and indigenous voice in parliament, and as Stu pointed out, will cause division, then why not just flip the whole thing on its head, and give the reigns to the owners of this country and let them decide how they want to run it? And obviously this reeks of idealism and romantacism but i'm just making the point that why are we always looking at it from what the whitefellla thinks indigenous crew should be ''allowed'' to have and what powers they're 'allowed' to recieve.
Pretty funny watching the nationals nationally having different views and support. Littleproud has blown this by prematurely taking a side that not even all his party agree on . WA nationals sticking with the yes vote . Like it was said in parliament today, its up to the Australian public not politicians. I think Noel Pearson’s summed up littleproud perfectly, what a dressing down that was .
bluediamond wrote:Sorry @goofy, didn't see the second part of your post. For sure we are, and i'm all down for multiculturalism, but when it's a painstaking struggle to get and indigenous voice in parliament, and as Stu pointed out, will cause division, then why not just flip the whole thing on its head, and give the reigns to the owners of this country and let them decide how they want to run it? And obviously this reeks of idealism and romantacism but i'm just making the point that why are we always looking at it from what the whitefellla thinks indigenous crew should be ''allowed'' to have and what powers they're 'allowed' to recieve.
Yeah sorry about that BD I added the second part 10 seconds after I posted the first bit.
Yep I hear what you’re saying, to me there’s no easy answer that’s for sure.
I think if you’re born here, eg. You and I, then we have as much say as anyone else that’s born here. That’s just me and it’s a tricky subject. Obviously one that’s very close to your heart.
Cheers for your reply @goofy.
Yeah it's definitely a tricky subject. It's never felt like my 'home' but i was born here. I do feel like i belong here but i don't feel like it's my country.
My above post is just a way to look at the argument/debate from a different perspective and imagining everything the other way around, flipped on it's head.
Australian society suddenly would probably be willing to accept a 50percent non indigenous/settler government quite readily if that was the reality..., which goes all the way to my original post at the beginning of this thread about how i believe the Australian government should be made up of at least 50percent indigenous Australians, as should media control as should land ownership.
But yep, there's no easy solutions, but a changing perspective is probably a key element from the one that's persisted for the last couple of hundred years.
Jacinta : "Learjetsetting Linda dripping with Gucci > Darkens the Dirty People!"
Indigenous Minister Linda : "Wotz a Gucci? ...I don't got that...does that mean I'm not dark enough yet!"
Jacinta : "We should all be forced to model PM Howard's super villain eyebrows...outta my way you!"
https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA14EDvu.img?h=0...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11479959/Anthony-Albanese-defen...
Q : 'Just when did the endangered Indigenous Gauccian Tribe die out?'
A : 'Experts bizarrely believe they never went outta fashion!'
Museum Exhibit A : "Feminist Face of Gucci remodelled as The Indigenous Youth Parliament PM."
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/i-still-want-the...
Jacinta delivers an Apology to "Last Season's People!"
Obvious to all that Jacinta's scary (PM Howard's eye brows) still need a bit more teasing!
One of your best as it wasn’t (tl;dr)
Very funny
bluediamond wrote:Hey @indo. Just for the sake of debate, could you mount an argument as to why the Australian government shouldn't be entirely made up of indigenous Australians?
Firstly i think it's great that we have many indigenous people in parliament and not just that but indigenous people with a diverse range of views from people like Jacinta Price or previously Warren Mundine, to independents like Jacqui Lambie to even people like Lidia Thorpe, even if im not a fan of her, diversity of views is a good thing.
In regard to the whole government elected being indigenous technically, i guess it's possible if Indigenous people ran in every seat and got voted in, but chances of it happening you would expect are like one in a zillion.
Obviously we live in a democracy where every Australian can run to be elected that is over 18 (some possible restrictions on criminal charges etc) and all Australians over 18 can also vote.
And we are all Australians no matter our ethnic backgrounds or skin colour so obviously it would go against our values and id even expect the law to discriminate and only give one ethnic group in Australia the right to run for government or the right to vote.
In my opinion in an ideal world those in parliament would also reflect the make up in society for example if 50% of the population is women and 50% men it would be great to also have that mix in parliament.
It would even be great to see Australians of all types of ethnic backgrounds in government in similar percentages to seen in the Australian community be it Asian, Indian, African, European, Middle Eastern and of course indigenous decent.
But for the Australian government to be made up of just one single ethnic group of Australians be it Asian, Indian, African, European, Middle Eastern or Indigenous decent, well i think that would be undemocratic and wrong on so many different levels and id expect not many people would disagree with me.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/nationals-opposi.... Nationals' opposition to the Voice 'extremely disappointing': Ken Wyatt. He says he took a "detailed" report with a model for a Voice to parliament to the former Coalition cabinet, twice.
What an embarrassment, what a national disgrace.
Hopefully this is another nail in coffin of the Nationals as an electable political party.
Smiling happy people 
Supafreak wrote:Smiling happy people
Hey Supafreak. Now there’s a ‘motley crew’ if I’ve ever seen one. Totally disgraceful. It includes one ‘coconut’, I’ll leave it up to you to try and find out the context of that word. AW.
White inside I’m guessing. No one looks particularly comfortable in that photo.
Wiki
In January of that year, Greens Lingiari candidate George Hanna had shared a racist meme attacking Price, referring to her as a "coconut" (an ethnic slur). Price described the post as despicable, and called for the Greens to disendorse Hanna, but the Greens refused.[17] Aboriginal activist Steve Hodder Watt accused Price of hypocrisy, and published messages in which Price referred to him as "white".[18][19]
ps George is indigenous
https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/a-greens-candidate-apologises-for-ra...
Cheers for your above reply @indo. obviously we have pretty strong opposing views but can see theres some common ground there.
Yeah was just a hypothetical for a different perspective.
AlfredWallace wrote:Hey Supafreak. Now there’s a ‘motley crew’ if I’ve ever seen one. Totally disgraceful. It includes one ‘coconut’, I’ll leave it up to you to try and find out the context of that word. AW.
You do know the term "coconut" is a racial slur???
Obviously the meaning is they appear black/brown on the outside but white on the inside.
While still demeaning and offensive no matter who says it, just like the N word you might be able to get away with it if you are a person of colour, but if your white it's a racial slur arguable a racist remark.
It's wrong and backwards on a number of levels.
Firstly you are implying that someone doesn't think or act a certain way based on a racial stereotype of how you believe an ethnic group should act or think(which is racist in itself), your propagating the idea that there is only one correct way for an indigenous person to think or act, instead of being individuals who like all of us should be free to think and act how we like without being limited by our background or skin colour.
It's damaging for both indigenous people and others to think this way,
For example, imagine in a remote Indigenous community if the local mob thought this way and a young girl had dreams of going to the city and being a doctor or a politician but all her life her mob was continually putting her down saying she is a coconut and not a real aboriginal person and just wants to be like white people, would it help her succeed or would it eventually wear her down and dampen her dream and see her settle for less.?
I agree the use of such words is a step too far however it’s use suggests a high degree of frustration directed at Price after all while an elected senator she represents no aboriginal community nor organisation in any way formally or otherwise and yet she’s seemingly happy to be the “aboriginal” voice for the Nats, Murdoch and the IPA.
Why did the nats need JP to deliver their no to the voice message ? Why couldn’t Littleproud simply state his (and some not all nationals ) position on the voice ? It’s not hard to figure out.
Wasn't going to get involved in this as I don't have time anymore but had to put this in here.
My eldest daughter went out with a part aboriginal guy for a while. Really nice kid and great family. He was beaten up on a regular basis for being too white.
How do you know that GS? Please don't quote media reports. Also thought in today's society there is no excuse for being called a coconut.
oxrox wrote:How do you know that GS? Please don't quote media reports. Also thought in today's society there is no excuse for being called a coconut.
I'm waiting to see how Alfred Wallace explains this but if it's as I think then it's a step too far and will have to be dealt with.
Wasn't meant to get anybody in trouble here Stunet. Just had to point out the hypocrisy.
oxrox wrote:Wasn't going to get involved in this as I don't have time anymore but had to put this in here.
My eldest daughter went out with a part aboriginal guy for a while. Really nice kid and great family. He was beaten up on a regular basis for being too white.
How do you know that GS? Please don't quote media reports. Also thought in today's society there is no excuse for being called a coconut.
100% agree oxrox, it’s unacceptable and I’m sorry to hear your story. I worked in the area for about 4-5 years and heard that slur used often and witnessed the volcanic reactions in all sorts of closed and public meetings. Very hurtful. My post was, perhaps poorly, trying to highlight the hurt someone like Price can cause, not on a personal but national level, to aboriginal people. Listening to Price is like listening to the one climate change denying scientist and ignoring the 1,000s who believe it’s real. She doesn’t represent aboriginal people yet knows what’s best apparently and is therefore repeating the 200+ years colonisation history. Thanks for your question, cheers.
oxrox wrote:Wasn't meant to get anybody in trouble here Stunet. Just had to point out the hypocrisy.
Nah, I'd already seen it, mate.
GuySmiley wrote:I agree the use of such words is a step too far however it’s use suggests a high degree of frustration directed at Price after all while an elected senator she represents no aboriginal community nor organisation in any way formally or otherwise and yet she’s seemingly happy to be the “aboriginal” voice for the Nats, Murdoch and the IPA.
All Jacinta does is bring a different viewpoint to things and highlights issues that media or others often dont like to touch like domestic violence in remote communities, or cultural drivers.
Apart from being elected by the wider community yes she doesn't represent one community or organisation but neither do other indigenous politician like Lidia Thorpe who is also vocal on indigenous issues.
No leader really represent a whole community even if there is one dominating/popular viewpoint because communities are made up of individuals who all think and feel differently.
Regarding the voice, Ironically enough while coming from opposite political spectrums its one area where crazily enough Jacinta and Lidia seem to agree to some extent, saying it will achieve little and is just a waste of money that could be spent on real issues.
BTW. Saying Jacinta is somehow like a climate denier is ridiculous, i expect you are referring to her and others who believe there is cultural aspects/drivers to indigenous issues of violence.
With the historical and physical evidence It's impossible to deny this aspect to some degree, the argument should be more to what level do cultural elements contribute and to what level do other elements like colonisation contribute.
Its an answer that we will probably really never know and very complex.
Relevant article to the question who does Price speaks for
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/01/jacinta-price-does...
Alfred Wallace is not calling Jacinta a coconut. It is quite obvious by his wording and the use of inverted commas/comma. I put up a link to where the use of “coconut” was from and it was said by an aboriginal man. I believe that photo and Alfred’s use of a quoted word was highlighting how Jacinta’s support mainly comes from white right wingers that her ideals align with and not with the majority of the aboriginal people she represents or from, as pointed out in that Gaurdian article, the land councils of the Territory.
I agree with Indo on this. Australia will go to a referendum on the Voice and it is important that all the viewpoints of indigenous Australians get to be aired and considered on their merits so the decision they make is as informed as possible. Price is entitled to put her case to the Australian people as much as Linda Burney or Noel Pearson or Warren Mundine. Racially slurring her because you don't agree is pathetic and achieves nothing, listen to what she has to say and decide if you agree or not. She deserves respect for putting herself out there and arguing her position.
No one here is racially slurring her. I also stated a page back she’s entitled to her opinions. The Nats and herself are trying to stamp out the conversation before more details are available. How can they say they don’t support it yet when they don’t know the full details yet. Because they don’t care if it has merit or not. With their platform they are the only opinion really being heard. They are trying to ride roughshod over the debate before it’s even started.
adam12 wrote:I agree with Indo on this. Australia will go to a referendum on the Voice and it is important that all the viewpoints of indigenous Australians get to be aired and considered on their merits so the decision they make is as informed as possible. Price is entitled to put her case to the Australian people as much as Linda Burney or Noel Pearson or Warren Mundine. Racially slurring her because you don't agree is pathetic and achieves nothing, listen to what she has to say and decide if you agree or not. She deserves respect for putting herself out there and arguing her position.
We should definitely hear Jacinta Price's views and judge them on their merits.
And according to a very wide range of (reputable and respected) Indigenous people, the judgement is that she doesn't speak for them.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of whether or not I agree with her, it's a matter of the Indigenous people she purports to represent not agreeing with her.
adam12 wrote:I agree with Indo on this. Australia will go to a referendum on the Voice and it is important that all the viewpoints of indigenous Australians get to be aired and considered on their merits so the decision they make is as informed as possible. Price is entitled to put her case to the Australian people as much as Linda Burney or Noel Pearson or Warren Mundine. Racially slurring her because you don't agree is pathetic and achieves nothing, listen to what she has to say and decide if you agree or not. She deserves respect for putting herself out there and arguing her position.
The only thing I would question is , is it really her position or are there other players scripting her speeches ? Here’s her speaking at the IPA a few months ago and at 2.24 she has some lovely things to say about the murdochs .
"For example, imagine in a remote Indigenous community if the local mob thought this way and a young girl had dreams of going to the city and being a doctor or a politician but all her life her mob was continually putting her down saying she is a coconut and not a real aboriginal person and just wants to be like white people, would it help her succeed or would it eventually wear her down and dampen her dream and see her settle for less.?"
interesting example
my girlfriend was working as a nurse in a hospital up NW, one of her workmates was regularly referred to as a 'coconut' for having the audacity to get a job and wanting to help her community...
bloody upstarts!
such a dilemma and disincentive though for aborignal people... but at the same time, many an unfortunate utteramce is said in anger, frustration or jest. and, its pretty confronting how un-politically correct many aboriginal people are when you spend time with them
in fact, in rougher parts of australia, the whiteys and blackfellas communicate in a manner that would leave most inner city melbournites disgusted - and im not necessarily talking in a negative manner...
oz is a big big place, with a vast array of cultures, to think the redfern (or newtown) set have a monopoly on what's good for aboriginal people is just plain ignorance and hubris
pretty sure there's heaps of indigenous folk voting for price in her electorate
even if they don't agree with all of her positions on everything
...but, a canceller's gotto cancel...
I guess
the contemporary trope of 'structural racism' ... (that no one ever dares / bothers to explain...) is an interesting one... if we look at aboriginal people as a percentage of population - they are already 'over represented' in parliment...
not complaining, i think its good, just making the comment
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