The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
@ Supafreak
I highly doubt anyone scripts her speeches, if you listen to any of her interviews they dont differ from her speeches, as you can see with her speech the other day she isn't reading notes, everything she says is things she believes straight from the heart.
Guy and you might likes to critique her because of association with Nats, Murdoch, IPA thats fine, but remember these are media outlets and organisations who support her and provide a platform to give her a voice, of course she is going to also give them praise for doing so, nothing wrong with that, its also how life and politics works.
Would she also love to have her voice heard on ABC or in the Guardian without any negative twist, of course she would I'm sure she would love to get her message out there to as wide audience as possible.
Anyway id honestly rather talk about the issues rather than the person, its kind of been a bit done before, you know i love her, and i know you guys don't thats fine.
I hear what you’re saying indo , if you watch all of the video I put up she is reading her speech, nothing wrong with that . Her praise of not just the murdoch family but of Tony Abbot and Gina has a certain smell about it .
and, speaking of racism, 'structural racism', and wicked problems...
found this an interesting watch
https://m.
in these times of a push to not lock people up...
seems the biggest problem here - and the complaint from aboriginal people - is the propensity to not enforce adequate penalties...
possibly a form of 'structural racism' if you will...
not advocating either way, ...just a somewhat damning example of'damned if you do, damned if you don't...
truly diificult problems with no easy solutions
@Supafreak
Ha ha I just watched it all, kind of funny actually because she is grinning so much when she says it maybe she thought it was BS or knew how some would react.
Yeah she is reading from a script here, not the best video kind of a bit blah blah telling the audience what they want to hear very scripted style type thing i even had to fast forward the last bit, bit hard to listen too, she is at her best when not reading from a script or playing up to an audience but more in a natural conversation style interview type setting talking in depth about things..
I think that goes for most people though, i think that's why long length style natural conversation podcast these days are so good, people being interviewed can really open up and explain thoughts deeply, instead of scripted or short one sentence interview type answers and you can get a much better insight into their thoughts and who they really are.
BTW. Listened to Anthony Kedious of RHCP yesterday, didn't seem as much as a dick as i thought he was, well he didn't sound like a dick at all, and i was surprised that he surfs these days, the way he was talking sounded a bit of a kook, but definitely could hear the stoke in his voice when talking about surfing.
"Coconut" can be a very offensive term when used despitefully.
On the other hand, I know a few blackfellas who are pretty liberal with the word and use it to take the piss out of each other regularly.
Better call in the S.C.U to work this one out.
Looks like Jacinta Price should be charged with a 93B - identification with intent to assimilate, profiting from coconut activities and thinking she's deadly when she's not.
And I bet she's got a cheese knife too.
GuySmiley wrote: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.
That story isn't that uncommon GS.
Got to say your comment about Jacinta being like a climate change denialist is a bit dramatic. I don't know her and I would think you don't either.
I find it a little confusing when people talk with such conviction that she is wrong and doesn't represent any of her people. This is coming from and I'm making a presumption here, so correct me if I'm wrong, who live in comfortable houses near the beach with little to no Indigineous people in these areas.
She is talking mainly about her people living in the NT who are under privileged and abused. I don't live there and I suspect no one on this forum does either. How can you discount what she is saying without going into these areas and talking to the people she says she represents.
That's why I also listen to what she has to say. She talks a lot about being equal and that is what she is striving for. I for one think that is a good thing. She says she doesn't want division. Sounds good to me.
We don't even know what we will be voting for at the referendum yet. Albo was on 7.30 last night and could not tell the audience what we are voting for. I find the nationals declaration strange based on that.
Everyone has their agenda to push in politics. They all have their own self interests at heart for whatever reasons. We should know that what comes out of these pollies mouths is not always the truth and listen to all sides to try and make an informed decision.
I for one will listen to someone who is pushing for equality with all peoples and no division. What is so wrong with that?
AlfredWallace wrote:Supafreak wrote:Smiling happy people
To clarify. My wife works with very large numbers of aboriginal people and has done for 30 years, we have more friends who are First Nations people than others. The term ‘coconut’ is not derogatory or racist in any fashion or sense of the word. It’s purely descriptive and a word widely and openly used by aboriginal people ONLY to describe an aboriginal person who they know is phenotypically an aborigine but in their view has a more ‘white peoples’ way of thinking. That’s it, nothing more.
As Peter Garrett once said ‘White Skin Black Heart’, well in this case it’s the opposite. AW.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.
"This is coming from [people] who live in comfortable houses near the beach with little to no Indigineous people in these areas."
You couldn't be more off track OxRox.
Have a squiz at the link GuySmiley put up a little while back.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/01/jacinta-price-does...
" 90 democratically elected Aboriginal men and women from the towns, remote communities and hundreds of tiny homelands of the southern half of the Northern Territory."
"Central Land Council delegates [and] the elected members of the Northern Land Council"
By being such a strident opponent of a voice to parliament, it's these people who Jacinta Price doesn't represent.
AndyM wrote:"This is coming from [people] who live in comfortable houses near the beach with little to no Indigineous people in these areas."
You couldn't be more off track OxRox.
Have a squiz at the link GuySmiley put up a little while back.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/01/jacinta-price-does...
" 90 democratically elected Aboriginal men and women from the towns, remote communities and hundreds of tiny homelands of the southern half of the Northern Territory."
"Central Land Council delegates [and] the elected members of the Northern Land Council"
By being such a strident opponent of a voice to parliament, it's these people who Jacinta Price doesn't represent.
Further to what AndyM says above to me it’s immaterial whether I think what Price says is right or wrong it’s the fact she represents no Aboriginal community nor group, in fact I think you will find she’s not welcome and if there’s one thing we should all agree on it’s self determination for all of us. Price’s position in opposing the voice continues the sad history of colonialism, of aboriginals being told what they need or what’s good for them and gee how has that worked out?
My point was the people who are contributing to this forum would likely live in a beachside suburb etc.
Yes, I read the link GS put up. I also had a look at the link sypkan put up. Look I'm just trying to be open minded about the whole thing. I personally can't discount what an Indigenous person is saying about her own people. She must be pretty evil if what she is saying is totally against the wishes of her own people.
There is also going to be an obscene amount of money involved in this decision so I'm going to sit back and take in all views. I won't take a Guardian article as gospel.
AW .. All good. There seems to be a fair bit of political correctness going on in these threads where people need to chill and I've been potted a couple of times for some very small indescretions. Thought the coconut bit was surprising. African Americans call one another the N word but I doubt you would get away with it even if you knew a few on a public forum.
seeds wrote: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.
You’re not serious about your first sentence are ya?
Fooled me then…
Well you read it wrong then. edit… in my opinion. I read it and went searching for what he was getting at.
Everything AW has posted on here has been considered, empathetic, moral and selfless. Funny how the woke hater Indo was the first to condemn him with his patronising first sentence in his reply.
"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."
Just to clarify, I have listened to her and looked at her background and couldn't disagree more with her. She belongs to the Center for Independent Studies, a libertarian think tank funded by the fossil fuel industry and to me seems to reflect the views of her patron, Gina Rinehart as do the federal National Party. I just think it is important that views like hers get oxygen now in the lead up to the referendum so that if and when the Voice gets up, which I am sure it will, that the proponents of such views can't claim they were shut down in the debate in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the vote. They will no doubt claim it anyway, but can't be taken seriously if they did have the opportunity to put their view and it was rejected.
This is what I’m getting at A12. Joe Blogs not engaged in politics or news in any sort of depth in the burbs sees an First Nations woman on the telly constantly saying it’s divisive blah blah will think well this is no good they don’t want this. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
ps. good on you for digging a bit deeper.
GuySmiley wrote:Further to what AndyM says above to me it’s immaterial whether I think what Price says is right or wrong it’s the fact she represents no Aboriginal community nor group, in fact I think you will find she’s not welcome and if there’s one thing we should all agree on it’s self determination for all of us. Price’s position in opposing the voice continues the sad history of colonialism, of aboriginals being told what they need or what’s good for them and gee how has that worked out?
And neither do most Aboriginal leaders like say Lidia Thorpe who again position on the matter is very similar to Jacinta's and she is in the party that is most vocal supporters its amazing she even was allowed to say what she did publicly the other month and not just tow the party line. (she has now said while she doesn't support it, she wont rally against i either)
BTW. im sure she would also not be welcome in many indigenous communities, the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory last year said this about her.
"There is nothing more galling or frustrating than when we have a senator from inner-city Melbourne, who visits the Territory for five minutes, flies home and then goes back to the Senate and makes deceitful comments," she said.
Ms Uibo said that Senator Thorpe had made several mistakes "in the true Canberra tradition of saying outrageous things to get your name on television".
"You should take the time before you travel to a remote community to ensure you are appropriately dressed for the community visit and not dressed like some southern tourist on their dry season holiday."
"There's nothing Territorians hate more than a lecture from a federal senator who doesn't even represent the Territory."
And that was what she said publicly, imagine what she said behind closed doors.
If these two from polar opposites dont support the voice then imagine the number of everyday indigenous people that also dont.
Cause i dont know if you know this, but not all indigenous people think the same, just like any ethnic group they have a broad range of views and dont all agree on all things.
BTW. No leader really represents the views of the whole community, even those democratically elected as leaders, there is always a division of support and opinion within a community big or small (even families), i see this in Indonesian villages where the village head is voted in, generally elders always male and generally the most well off in a village, they might get the most votes, but it doesn't mean everyone supports them or agrees with them, the people behind their backs bag the shit out of them, but they represent the village as kepala desa(village head) deal with any issues and control funds from government etc, id expect remote indigenous communities operate in a similar way.
@Bluediamond , what have you been up to ?
Today Rupert Murdoch's News Corp Herald Sun knowingly published a LIE.
— ☮️💧 Sleeping Giants Oz 📣 (@slpng_giants_oz) December 1, 2022
Andrew Bolt THREE times repeated the deliberate LIE.
NEVER has an "Aboriginal only Parliament" been proposed.
Link to @AusPressCouncil complaints form ⬇️https://t.co/ob1HErQIIZ#Auspol #afternoonbriefing pic.twitter.com/wg82dIsm72
@info, why do you assume I support Thorpe in anyway? By the way she is just a senator like Price and not an aboriginal leader like you again refer to her above although unlike Price, Thorpe comes from a family strong on community advancement going back to her grandmother. I have no idea who Ms Uibo is but your quoted comments could and should equally apply to Price seeing she has no community backing whatsoever so I again refer you to this link highlighting the community grassroots nature of the Voice.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/01/jacinta-price-does...
Quoting Adam12 above
"Just to clarify, I have listened to her and looked at her background and couldn't disagree more with her. She {{ Price}} belongs to the Center for Independent Studies, a libertarian think tank funded by the fossil fuel industry and to me seems to reflect the views of her patron, Gina Rinehart as do the federal National Party. I just think it is important that views like hers get oxygen now in the lead up to the referendum so that if and when the Voice gets up, which I am sure it will, that the proponents of such views can't claim they were shut down in the debate in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the vote. They will no doubt claim it anyway, but can't be taken seriously if they did have the opportunity to put their view and it was rejected."
So you guys are happy for the 11 elected indigenous parliamentarians to have their voice taken away from them and given to a bunch of unelected people who will represent whatever it is being put together.
Parliament comes from the word Parler which means to talk. There is 11 indigenous parliamentarians which is an over representation who have the ability to use their voice now.
As far as I can tell once the new constitution is enshrined, if it gets through, their current elected voice will be null and void.
oxrox wrote:So you guys are happy for the 11 elected indigenous parliamentarians to have their voice taken away from them and given to a bunch of unelected people who will represent whatever it is being put together.
Parliament comes from the word Parler which means to talk. There is 11 indigenous parliamentarians which is an over representation who have the ability to use their voice now.
As far as I can tell once the new constitution is enshrined, if it gets through, their current elected voice will be null and void.
Bit out of context? Current Indigenous parliamentarians weren't necessarily elected upon race. Also, what happens if a sitting parliament has few, or no, Indigenous folk?
Also, the Voice will be advisory. No-one's voice will become "null and void".
bluediamond wrote:Yes mate @goofy.
A very simple one. This is their land and their country. Always was and always will be.
If anyone who owns land or property believes this feel free to give your property away. I can arrange for my nephews or niece to take it off your hands. They live in the kimberly, I'm sure they'd love a surf coast or city pad to holiday in. They have a large extended family, I could find recipients for many properties. Any givers?
stunet wrote:oxrox wrote:So you guys are happy for the 11 elected indigenous parliamentarians to have their voice taken away from them and given to a bunch of unelected people who will represent whatever it is being put together.
Parliament comes from the word Parler which means to talk. There is 11 indigenous parliamentarians which is an over representation who have the ability to use their voice now.
As far as I can tell once the new constitution is enshrined, if it gets through, their current elected voice will be null and void.Bit out of context? Current Indigenous parliamentarians weren't necessarily elected upon race. Also, what happens if a sitting parliament has few, or no, Indigenous folk?
Also, the Voice will be advisory. No-one's voice will become "null and void".
Yeah fair enough. Trying to get my head around exactly how this thing will work. You are right, if there is no elected indigenous in the future that is a problem.
Every time I hear Price talk its all "White Fella talk" actually haven't heard her say anything representative of 1st nations.
Seriously what is it Price stands for, attacking woke-ism? Anyone see the problem with that?
Lesley Turner chief executive of the Central Land Council and a member of the Referendum Engagement Group
Jacinta Price doesn’t speak for my people – and her stance shows why Australia needs the Indigenous voice
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/01/jacinta-price-does...
"...could and should equally apply to Price seeing she has no community backing whatsoever..."
you keep saying this... but its just utter bullshit...
or 'questionable facts' you might say
she may not sit at the cool kids table, but she was voted in by her community, and Im pretty sure it wasn't by only the nasty white racists ones you constantly bang on about
It's really simple guys... the Constitution will be updated to reflect the fact that the country wasn't Terra Nullius. The Voice will allow Aboriginal representatives to advise/choose what's best for blackfellas instead of whitefellas setting the agenda. Everything else can be worked out with those foundations in place. So called Practical Reconciliation will continue.
It's simple.
I find it most interesting that people just attack the person jaccinta price (as well as rather tedious, boring, and predictable at the same time...)
rather than engaging in her criticisms of the voice
its right, lidia thorpe does share similar concerns... (but is skimmed over / nowhere near as attacked the same)
maybe, just maybe... if advocates actually want this thing to get up... they should engage in the issues rather than the oh so typical current attack the person / source / dont engage MO...
both senators raise some good issues that could possibly be debated and addressed? ...so this thing actually has some legs...
or, we can all just sling shit, find no middle ground, increase division, and possibly fail...
Im on the fence with this one, and tbh, it'd have to be a pretty good (practical) proposal for me to get of my arse and vote
atm, looks I'll justs sit it out, i wonder how many other aussies will feel the same?
I know most feel strongly either way, but a lot of crew sitting it out doesn't bode well in a referendum situatiom
my personal feeling is it will get up anyway, but it'll just scrape through, sadly this wont be no most convincing 1968 referendum moment
100% Sypkan agree whole heartily with both comments.
And this idea i keep seeing of white fella talk or black fella talk or white or black thinking or way somebody is suppose to think or act based on ethnicity or skin colour is completely backwards and kinda racist even if the intention itself comes from a good place.
Reality is people are people, no matter skin colour or ethnicity, there is slight cultural differences, but end of the day, we all need the same things to prosper.
PS. Fking stuck in a mechanic waiting room in Pakenham done an alternator $700+ and hours to kill waiting for the part, argghh
sypkan wrote:"...could and should equally apply to Price seeing she has no community backing whatsoever..."
you keep saying this... but its just utter bullshit...
or 'questionable facts' you might say
she may not sit at the cool kids table, but she was voted in by her community, and Im pretty sure it wasn't by only the nasty white racists ones you constantly bang on about
Huh??
The Voice was developed via a broad and extensive community consultation process led by elected Aboriginal community leaders so when they speak on this matter they do so with the full backing and support of the Aboriginal communities that they have come from. Neither Price nor Thorpe, while elected senators have that backing or status. Here I was thinking the difference was obvious but apparently not.
nice try guy...
but even you are not that stupid
or maybe you are...
ideological blindness is clearly very debillitating
that all you got there sypkan? your usual negative rant, twist? nothing good or positive to say, like ever? has it always been thus with you? why not have a surf and wash away some of that negativity ..... take care from your inner city 1/2 strength decaf soy latte drinking woke buddy
dude... do I really need to explain it to you?
or are you fully aware of the misinformation - the 'questionable facts' (...alternative facts?) - you spread?
you are saying... purporting... constantly... that 'the voice' has total aboriginal community backing, and therefore, no one else's perspectives should be entertained at all...
does jacinta price back it?
does warren mundine?
lidia thorpe?
are they not aboriginal people?
are they too, well... you know... (i hear they make nice water) for you...
you say jacinta price has no community support 'whatsoever'
sorry dude you are spreading misinformation... questionable facts... pure and plain fucking bullshit...
are you stupid?
or just totally and indisputedly ideologically blind?
over to you champ....
Just in case we forget where it came from.
https://ulurustatement.org/education/faqs/#:~:text=A%20First%20Nations%2....
Thanks Blackers..." The practical details of a voice to parliament will continue to be worked through as we reach referendum." Is the thing we need to clarify.
Supafreak wrote:@Bluediamond , what have you been up to ? https://twitter.com/slpng_giants_oz/status/1598191136937373696?s=46&t=pd...
hahahaha. Surely Bolt's not a Swellnet reader!!?? Unless he walks amongst us!! Hmm...i wonder who that might be. hehe.
If only i had that kind of sway @supa. haha. Sadly, just been brushcutting for days on end and riding the foamy in onshore slop. :-D
Patrick wrote:bluediamond wrote:Yes mate @goofy.
A very simple one. This is their land and their country. Always was and always will be.If anyone who owns land or property believes this feel free to give your property away. I can arrange for my nephews or niece to take it off your hands. They live in the kimberly, I'm sure they'd love a surf coast or city pad to holiday in. They have a large extended family, I could find recipients for many properties. Any givers?
That's a ridiculous suggestion @Patrick! It would be like someone coming and just taking your land and stealing your children and suppressing your culture. Wrong in every way and if ever such an injustice would occur, surely the right thing to do would be to give everything back?? Or am i missing the point?
I've never understood the "always was, always will be" slogan.
On the other hand, I saw a sticker the other day which said "look after country and country will look after you".
Sounds like a good vision for the future.
That's a good one Andy. What about "Let's not dwell on the past but look to the future" :)
bluediamond wrote:Patrick wrote:bluediamond wrote:Yes mate @goofy.
A very simple one. This is their land and their country. Always was and always will be.If anyone who owns land or property believes this feel free to give your property away. I can arrange for my nephews or niece to take it off your hands. They live in the kimberly, I'm sure they'd love a surf coast or city pad to holiday in. They have a large extended family, I could find recipients for many properties. Any givers?
That's a ridiculous suggestion @Patrick! It would be like someone coming and just taking your land and stealing your children and suppressing your culture. Wrong in every way and if ever such an injustice would occur, surely the right thing to do would be to give everything back?? Or am i missing the point?
If you own property, no one's stopping you from giving it away. Like I said, I can arrange for my (aboriginal) neice or nephews to receive it. You talk the talk (well, chant slogans) but do you walk the walk?
There're clearly elements of the past which need to be discussed, acknowledged and accepted as fact.
There's lots of work to be done there, and we're finally understanding this as a nation.
But I think we need positive unifying narratives for the future as well.
The concept of "look after country and country will look after you" clearly comes from an Indigenous angle but it's essential for everyone
bluediamond wrote:Patrick wrote:bluediamond wrote:Yes mate @goofy.
A very simple one. This is their land and their country. Always was and always will be.If anyone who owns land or property believes this feel free to give your property away. I can arrange for my nephews or niece to take it off your hands. They live in the kimberly, I'm sure they'd love a surf coast or city pad to holiday in. They have a large extended family, I could find recipients for many properties. Any givers?
That's a ridiculous suggestion @Patrick! It would be like someone coming and just taking your land and stealing your children and suppressing your culture. Wrong in every way and if ever such an injustice would occur, surely the right thing to do would be to give everything back?? Or am i missing the point?
And if you've been stealing children you can give them back too.
(It might relieve you of some of your guilt.)
I better go do a head count!
Patrick wrote:bluediamond wrote:Patrick wrote:bluediamond wrote:Yes mate @goofy.
A very simple one. This is their land and their country. Always was and always will be.If anyone who owns land or property believes this feel free to give your property away. I can arrange for my nephews or niece to take it off your hands. They live in the kimberly, I'm sure they'd love a surf coast or city pad to holiday in. They have a large extended family, I could find recipients for many properties. Any givers?
That's a ridiculous suggestion @Patrick! It would be like someone coming and just taking your land and stealing your children and suppressing your culture. Wrong in every way and if ever such an injustice would occur, surely the right thing to do would be to give everything back?? Or am i missing the point?
If you own property, no one's stopping you from giving it away. Like I said, I can arrange for my (aboriginal) neice or nephews to receive it. You talk the talk (well, chant slogans) but do you walk the walk?
Wow, thats a pretty insulting post. Chanting slogans. Have you read this whole thread. You know little about me and my background and assume i'm just trying to make myself feel better. Nope. Correct me if i'm wrong, but is empathy and caring for others something you frown upon as i detect a strong sense of self entitlement to your post. I'm assuming you're an indigenous fella yourself?? Or?
Show me one part of what i've said where i've said what indigenous people should do in any of my posts. All i've ever posted about is what western culture, and settler culture can give back to right the wrongs of the past. I post ideas that are obviously weighted heavily in favour of indigenous Australians, purely because i'd hope it makes people think., and realise how lucky we are in this country and giving some of our privileges up is a neccesity in moving forward and healing past injustices.
Mate, i'm happy to sacrifice alot. I don't need to give you my personal life on a public forum, but as i said over and over in this thread, sacrificing our easy cushy life that is built on the blood and oppression is something i'm comfortable with.
When i say realestate, you assume i mean a house on the coast. What about crown land, national parks, reserves, coastal parks. These are the no brainers to me that should automatically be transferred back to the hands of Indigenous Australians.
I really hope you're not Blowin using another name again ffs.
You can't change the past but you can hopefully make a better future.
It’s such a challenging situation. How do we white people face up to and right the wrong of what we did:
1. We came here and decimated the indigenous Australians by murder and disease, and then stole their land from them in a magic trick of white-man’s law.
2. Then for the remaining aboriginal Australians, we marginalise and discriminate against them, shuffle many of them off into remote communities of poverty and disadvantage, and turn a blind eye, out of sight out of mind.
Actually can the indigenous voice in parliament be viewed as another magic trick of us duping the aboriginal Australians to further participate and assimilate into our white society, culture and political and legal systems?
From reading history I recall instances of war torn peoples particularly in Eastern Europe trying to live as minorities assimilated within other ethnic/cultural peoples, and due to it not working out so well they are then given their own geographical regions and support to form their own self governments and way of life.
Actually a common theme in China is where ethnic groups are given certain geographical regions called autonomous regions in which they have a certain amount of self governance. See for instance the wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_regions_of_China in which it says:
The autonomous regions (Chinese: 自治区; pinyin: Zìzhìqū) are the highest-level administrative divisions of China. Like Chinese provinces, an autonomous region has its own local government, but under Chinese law, an autonomous region has more legislative rights, such as the right to "formulate self-government regulations and other separate regulations." An autonomous region is the highest level of minority autonomous entity in China, which has a comparably higher population of a particular minority ethnic group.
(There’s also autonomous prefectures and administrative divisions.)
I have spent quite some time in the largest one of them, Guangxi, and there is quite the expression of their unique culture and way of life.
“Actually can the indigenous voice in parliament be viewed as another magic trick of us duping the aboriginal Australians to further participate and assimilate into our white society, culture and political and legal systems?”
Wow that’s some serious cynicism there.
Not to mention showing large amounts of contempt and disrespect for all those who put together the Uluṟu Statement From the Heart.
"I've never understood the "always was, always will be" slogan."
pretty sure this comes from the complex legal arguments that some use - or moreso once used - to take back the whole kit and kaboodle
which are fair enough arguments, and do make a good point... but... realistically...
it's all a bit 80's / 90's...
and a catchy slogan...
AndyM wrote:“Actually can the indigenous voice in parliament be viewed as another magic trick of us duping the aboriginal Australians to further participate and assimilate into our white society, culture and political and legal systems?”
Wow that’s some serious cynicism there.
Not to mention showing large amounts of contempt and disrespect for all those who put together the Uluṟu Statement From the Heart.
yes and no...
language is tricky
I think this is why the voice is 'marketed' as a generous offer of reconciliation from indigenous people
they have tempered their demands considerably, ...considerably considerably... (the mainstreames anyway....)
after being 'duped' out of more ambitious promises...
conceded to realities over 'never ceded'?
or just a step?
anyway, it is a pretty modest request...
but it is hard to see it as being any different to atsic or any other number of bodies that have had a run
“conceded to realities over 'never ceded'?”
Yeah I think the realities are obvious.
“ always will be“ might be good for morale and dignity but I don’t think it’s dealing with the here and now.
A voice to Parliament is much more pragmatic.
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