The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
@happyppl did you read this or not really interested ? https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-c...
GuySmiley wrote:sypkan wrote:GuySmiley wrote:sypkan wrote:and a paragraph for the smiley guy...
"...Thorpe added that people needed to respect there was not a singular homogeneous view across the Indigenous community, saying: “We have different ways that we think would bring this country together. Jacinta has hers and I, through the black grassroots movement in this country, have another way.”..."
No shit Einstein
so why have you been arguing the opposite?
You're none too sharp sykpan, perhaps sharp as a bowling ball.
"...people needed to respect there was (is) not a singular homogeneous view across the Indigenous community ...". Please enlighten me where I've argued against this fundamental principle of Govt engagement with Indigenous groups
" ....Jacinta has hers and I, through the black grassroots movement in this country, have another way.”
That's a fact and precisely what I've previously said. Price is perfectly entitled to her view as an elected Senator as does Thorpe.
Importantly Price, however, has no Aboriginal community backing nor status while Thorpe at least comes from a family rich in action towards community advancement going back to her grandmother.
So what's it going to be sypkan? Agree that Aboriginal communities need to be truly engaged/consulted as implied in "...people needed to respect there was (is) not a singular homogeneous view across the Indigenous community ..." or are you and others going to instead listen to Senator Price who offers an unrepresentative (from the Aboriginal community perspective) singular homogeneous view about the voice?
you started so well...
then the regression set in...
(well... I guess you literally ARE the regressive left...)
"...Importantly Price, however, has no Aboriginal community backing nor status..."
yeh, no community support...
just her family, mundine, and the thousands of aboriginal people that voted her in ...and lydia thorpe it would seem...
no status either...
except for being elected to parliment that is...
how many times have you said this now?
5, 10, 20? ...you know what they say about if you repeat something enough...
becomes 'true' to you I guess
which equates to 'questionable facts' for some of us...
commonly known as bullshit
Reading comprehension isn’t one of your strengths is it?
GuySmiley wrote:Reading comprehension isn’t one of your strengths is it?
maybe... maybe not...
but when you have written it sooooo many times, I recken I've got it
"Importantly Price, however, has no Aboriginal community backing..."
nah, clearly she doesn't speak for lesley turner's 'my people'
""She can’t mean the people I work for – 90 democratically elected Aboriginal men and women from the towns"
the cats on the pay roll...
the same old same old old gaurd cats jacinta price unashamedly criticises...
she speaks for jacinta price's 'my people'
the ones who do not feel represented by the old guard, the ones who possibly didn't get elected
Im pretty sure the 90 weren't elected unaminously, or lesley turner would have made a big song and dance about it
that doesn't make jacinta prices's 'my people' persona non grata... it doesn't make them not aboriginal either... nor not a community in themselves...
they are a community within themselves, and listening to 'all voices' means they are just as entitled to speak and be heard just as much as anyone else
they, are an 'aboriginal community' too, you may not like their politics... but tough titties...
pretty simple stuff... i can't believe you and lesley don't get it, i really really cannot believe it...
I don't believe it, not for a single minute
obtusesness runs thick amogst idealogues
just stop bullshitting and we can move on
From the article I put up on the previous page re Littleproud's electorate.
Inningai woman Suzanne Thompson co chair of the working group or the creation of the Uluru statement is against the voice.
"Because if the 28 Uluru statement working group members weren't heard, I don't know how the rest of the mob are going to be heard."
"I don't think we've arrived at... what is the voice, what does it look like, is it economic, is it about closing the gap... what does it mean for First People's in this country? I think we've got it wrong.
Surely as co chair of the Uluru Statement working group this holds weight.
No, I haven't researched her in anyway and don't know her political allegience.
As this will change the constitution which I consider a big deal for the country, I want detail and so it seems do some of the indigenous. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want detail.
Supafreak wrote:@happyppl did you read this or not really interested ? https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-c...
oh supa, how could i read it when i never knew how to access it? however thankyou for the pdf took one look at the page, no1 of 200+ more...argh!!!! no freakin way!
i believe in the common sense dictum of "keep it simple stupid" it's an old saying not haveing a dig at you, ha.
came back on to try to get an answer, so this is my query...
that opinion piece by prof langdon to quote a chapter "politicians and columnists and whatever andrew bolt is are working hard to ensure that by the time we get to the referendum most australians will believe there is no detail. their claims about the deleterious impact of the Voice on our great nation fail one by one as they become wilder and wilder answered in detail by former high court judge kenneth hayne and emminent lawyers including mark liebler and anne twomey. as twomey says, all that is important at the referendum is to know the scope of the power being enshrined. this leaves the function in the hands of the parliament, with the oversite of democratic process. "it puts democracy, not the devil, in charge of the detail". thats my query, what page(s) on the pdf are these details....
this will determine my vote...back to you supa.
Supafreak wrote:@happyppl did you read this or not really interested ? https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-c...
oh supa, how could i read it when i never knew how to access it? however thankyou for the pdf took one look at the page, no1 of 200+ more...argh!!!! no freakin way!
i believe in the common sense dictum of "keep it simple stupid" it's an old saying not haveing a dig at you, ha.
came back on to try to get an answer, so this is my query...
that opinion piece by prof langdon to quote a chapter "politicians and columnists and whatever andrew bolt is are working hard to ensure that by the time we get to the referendum most australians will believe there is no detail. their claims about the deleterious impact of the Voice on our great nation fail one by one as they become wilder and wilder answered in detail by former high court judge kenneth hayne and emminent lawyers including mark liebler and anne twomey. as twomey says, all that is important at the referendum is to know the scope of the power being enshrined. this leaves the function in the hands of the parliament, with the oversite of democratic process. "it puts democracy, not the devil, in charge of the detail". thats my query, what page(s) on the pdf are these details....
this will determine my vote...back to you supa.
Supafreak wrote:@happyppl did you read this or not really interested ? https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-c...
oh supa, how could i read it when i never knew how to access it? however thankyou for the pdf took one look at the page, no1 of 200+ more...argh!!!! no freakin way!
i believe in the common sense dictum of "keep it simple stupid" it's an old saying not haveing a dig at you, ha.
came back on to try to get an answer, so this is my query...
that opinion piece by prof langdon to quote a chapter "politicians and columnists and whatever andrew bolt is are working hard to ensure that by the time we get to the referendum most australians will believe there is no detail. their claims about the deleterious impact of the Voice on our great nation fail one by one as they become wilder and wilder answered in detail by former high court judge kenneth hayne and emminent lawyers including mark liebler and anne twomey. as twomey says, all that is important at the referendum is to know the scope of the power being enshrined. this leaves the function in the hands of the parliament, with the oversite of democratic process. "it puts democracy, not the devil, in charge of the detail". thats my query, what page(s) on the pdf are these details....
this will determine my vote...back to you supa.
apologies for triple post my comp plug is wonky, kept loseing connection did'nt realise it sent 3x
cheers for info and your patience.
The thing is happyppl the details have always been there but people aren’t prepared to read it as there is so much detail to read hahaha and that’s only the shortened version . I haven’t read it all myself, I don’t feel the need to .Like I wrote in a reply to sypkan , I’m voting yes on the principle of what the voice is about. If the voice gets up with a yes vote my life won’t change. If the voice doesn’t get up with a no vote my life still won’t change. It won’t affect me one way or the other but it will affect the First Nation indigenous Australians. This hasn’t come about overnight it’s been decades in the planning by highly intelligent First Nations people. They deserve a voice to parliament on issues that affect them and what’s been done in the past clearly hasn’t isn’t working. It won’t be a magical solution but it’s a step in the right direction. If you believe that it’s just another money grab by some individual’s then maybe look closer at who is opposing the voice and what they are afraid of losing.
there is indeed plenty of detail
detail detail detail on the who and how we got to this point, but nothing on the what...
what it is
what it will look like
what the hell the model will actually be
the important bit - for many of us...
just saw albo on 7.30 report
still ducking and weaving on these questions
still couldn't give a straight answer as to whether australians wll know what they are voting for before the referendum
pretty bloody basic stuff
people don't really give a shit about the gravy train to here ...but that is all they are selling...
show us the fucking station!
What do people think they will lose if the voice to parliament gets a yes ?
I probably won't lose anything
its about what I will gain... disbelief, disheartenment, and frustration...
having worked in 'the industry', trust me, more than half of the shit you hear in the media - from both sides of politics - is so far from the truth the whole shebang seems hopeless
'the narrative' is pure bullshit
I hold nothing but compassion and hope for aboriginal people, and I share sentiments very similar to you re. the voice
but I also share sentiments very similar to price and thorpe about just adding another layer of bureaucracy to what's already existing - and sadly, that seems to be all we are getting
it all just seems a waste of a referendum
like thorpe says, what they are proposing could be done through legislation, and use (save) the referendum for something of more significance
I will definitely not vote no, that is certain, i may vote yes, but it will be for all the wrong reasons
I will more than probably just leave it blank
hopefully labor come up with something i can get behind. but I doubt it... because it appears from labor's current talk on the matter, we won't even know what the bloody thing is
if they don't yet know what it entails, because it is still in development - then just bloody say that!
but they're not even hinting at that, I have now seen linda burney and albanese totally dodge, weave, and refuse to answer the question of whether australians will know what we are voting for before the referendum
happy to be proven wrong
'Plenty of detail' available on the Voice: Megan Davis https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/-plenty-of-detai.... It’s only 7 minutes long , it won’t answer all peoples questions but will point you in a direction of what will happen in order to give you the information some are seeking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Davis
Supafreak wrote:The thing is happyppl the details have always been there but people aren’t prepared to read it as there is so much detail to read hahaha and that’s only the shortened version . I haven’t read it all myself, I don’t feel the need to .Like I wrote in a reply to sypkan , I’m voting yes on the principle of what the voice is about. If the voice gets up with a yes vote my life won’t change. If the voice doesn’t get up with a no vote my life still won’t change. It won’t affect me one way or the other but it will affect the First Nation indigenous Australians. This hasn’t come about overnight it’s been decades in the planning by highly intelligent First Nations people. They deserve a voice to parliament on issues that affect them and what’s been done in the past clearly hasn’t isn’t working. It won’t be a magical solution but it’s a step in the right direction. If you believe that it’s just another money grab by some individual’s then maybe look closer at who is opposing the voice and what they are afraid of losing.
SF you echo my sentiments totally
The High Court of Australia was authorised in 1901 under s71 of the Constitution, it's establishment and operation didn't start until legislation in the Judiciary Act 1903. In other words the principle of having a High Court came from the Constitution and the detail on how it was composed and it's powers and operation came later from legislation. The Voice is no different. Simply creating a body by legislation without enshrining it in the Constitution means it can be removed by legislation, enshrining it means it would take a referendum to remove it. So you first create the existence of a Voice in the Constitution, then Parliament legislates the detail, after debate, that passes both Houses. Demanding finalisation of detail now is counter productive and a furphy, the principle of having a Voice enshrined in the Constitution is the referendum issue. Dutton is just trying to create a hot mess to confuse and confound, hoping for a political defeat for Labor and because he's a cunt that can't help himself when cunting opportunities arise.
adam12 wrote:The High Court of Australia was authorised in 1901 under s71 of the Constitution, it's establishment and operation didn't start until legislation in the Judiciary Act 1903. In other words the principle of having a High Court came from the Constitution and the detail on how it was composed and it's powers and operation came later from legislation. The Voice is no different. Simply creating a body by legislation without enshrining it in the Constitution means it can be removed by legislation, enshrining it means it would take a referendum to remove it. So you first create the existence of a Voice in the Constitution, then Parliament legislates the detail, after debate, that passes both Houses. Demanding finalisation of detail now is counter productive and a furphy, the principle of having a Voice enshrined in the Constitution is the referendum issue. Dutton is just trying to create a hot mess to confuse and confound, hoping for a political defeat for Labor and because he's a cunt that can't help himself when cunting opportunities arise.
Thanks for that adam12 , Albo has actually explained the process several times but some ( sky news )choose to ignore this and demand detail now .
adam12 wrote:The High Court of Australia was authorised in 1901 under s71 of the Constitution, it's establishment and operation didn't start until legislation in the Judiciary Act 1903. In other words the principle of having a High Court came from the Constitution and the detail on how it was composed and it's powers and operation came later from legislation. The Voice is no different. Simply creating a body by legislation without enshrining it in the Constitution means it can be removed by legislation, enshrining it means it would take a referendum to remove it. So you first create the existence of a Voice in the Constitution, then Parliament legislates the detail, after debate, that passes both Houses. Demanding finalisation of detail now is counter productive and a furphy, the principle of having a Voice enshrined in the Constitution is the referendum issue. Dutton is just trying to create a hot mess to confuse and confound, hoping for a political defeat for Labor and because he's a cunt that can't help himself when cunting opportunities arise.
Calling Dutton a cunt is being nice ...
Despicable human ...
yep adam...
but it is still hard to see how it will difer from any number of other advisory bodies already given a run, as any recommendations still just go to the government of the day
much like now...
labor could still give an inkling of how it will work / look
atm they just look cagey as fuck
. Does anyone think maybe Dutton and the LNP haven’t actually bothered to read the information that has been given to them , even the information given by members of their own party ?Hamish "it was pretty easy to find those answers"
— Squizz (@SquizzSTK) January 10, 2023
Jane Hume "why hasn't the Labor Party made that information freely available?"
Hamish "it's on the internet!"
Seems the Liberals only read pamphlets.#auspol pic.twitter.com/m0tP9CghJT
Who the hell claims that any vessel wrecked or washed up on "aboriginal land belongs to the aborigines"?
Some idiot called Michael Mansell.
Doing himself and others no favours...
I think the above pdf and say this The Guardian explainer give enough detail about the proposed Indigenous Voice.
Just wanted to share this interesting Australia Institute article I just found on the Sami parliaments of Norway, Sweden and Finland, which our proposed Indigenous Voice is quite similar in nature to. (Not sure if anyone above has mentioned them.)
Australia Institute wrote:The Nordic Sami parliaments provide the indigenous people of Norway, Sweden and Finland with a voice in decisions affecting their communities. These parliaments provide an insight for attempts in Australia to provide a similar voice for Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The Sami (also Sámi or Saami) are indigenous peoples who originate from Sápmi, which encompasses the northern areas of Norway, Sweden and Finland, and the Russian Kola Peninsula. The Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian constitutions all recognise certain rights of the Sami, with Norway and Finland also constitutionally recognising their status as an indigenous people.[1]
The Sami parliaments (Sámediggi) of Finland, Sweden and Norway provide the Sami with a voice in decisions affecting their communities. They have their basis in international recognition of the rights of indigenous people by the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 27) and the ILO’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169). The latter includes provisions about states’ obligations to consult indigenous peoples and consider their customs when applying national laws.[2]
The Sami parliaments are not parliaments in the Westminster sense – they do not provide self-government and do not have a formal legislative function. They are mostly consultative bodies whose purpose is to promote and preserve cultural self-determination, covering matters such as language, traditional livelihood, land rights and social wellbeing. They are established by legislation and are elected bodies whose voters must be registered on a Sami electoral roll. The Sami parliaments also represent Sami interests internationally.
The three Sami parliaments have a similar structure with a national assembly elected every four years, an executive board and a committee system, and are housed in their own buildings.[3]
The Finnish Sami Parliament is the oldest. The Constitution of Finland recognises the Sami as an indigenous people and their right to self-regulation regarding their language and culture, including the right to use their own language when associating with authorities. Linguistic rights are also established in the Finnish Language Act.[4] The Act on the Sami Parliament (which also defines a Sami person and the Sami homeland), defines the Sami Parliament’s scope and relations with the Finnish Government.[5]
In safeguarding and promoting the constitutional objectives, the Act provides that the Sami Parliament may ‘make initiatives and proposals to the authorities’, adopt its own procedural rules and represent the Sami in national and international affairs. The Sami Parliament is also empowered to decide, without the right of appeal, the allocation of Sami-designated funds.
The Finnish Government also has obligations under the Act. It is ‘obliged’ to negotiate with the Sami on specific matters, including community planning; land and conservation management; applications for mining licences; the development, teaching and application of Sami languages; and legislative or administrative changes affecting Sami culture. However, the Act does not preclude government authorities from proceeding with matters that have not been negotiated.
The Sami parliaments vary in their ambit. Nordic academics assert that the Norwegian Sami Parliament has greater scope to decide the issues it will pursue and has closer ties to the Norwegian political system. This is because, in addition to Sami parties, national political parties can also put forward candidates for election to the Sami Parliament.[6]
Note the Russian Sami do not have a national Sami parliament. However, they are represented on the Sami Parliamentary Council which is the cooperative body for the Sami parliaments.[7]
“Although we, the Indigenous peoples of the world, live under very diverse conditions, we share a history of colonialism, suppression of language, loss of culture and lands. However, we also share experiences of emancipation, of empowerment, of revival of language and culture.”
- Aili Keskitalo, President of the Sami Parliament of Norway[8]Sami representation through their parliaments is not without its challenges or limitations, as explained by Professor Bertrus de Villiers from the Curtin Law School in evidence to the parliamentary inquiry into constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.[9] However, they do offer examples and provide ideas about how a future voice for Australia’s Indigenous peoples might work. This voice is now being explored through the Australian Government’s Indigenous Voice co-design process to establish a national representative body and regional representative bodies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.[10]
Good post gsco. Hard to see why people would not want to support it. Other than disingenuous politicking.
Howard, the unflushable turd, lingers on
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/14/peter-duttons-app...
GuySmiley wrote:Howard, the unflushable turd, lingers on
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/14/peter-duttons-app...
GuySmiley . The Howard turd was shroud in one of those downstairs ‘wipes’, those things are totally unflushable and block ya septic tank. AW.
We've had a Howard/Abbott double flush dilemma this week. Two of the most obnoxious unflushables in Australian history still poking their filthy heads above the rim.
bluediamond wrote:We've had a Howard/Abbott double flush dilemma this week. Two of the most obnoxious unflushables in Australian history still poking their filthy heads above the rim.
bluediamond. thats gold. So good mate.AW
Who will take over from spud eventually ? Sussie or Jane ? They really are unelectable. https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/01/18/bad...
Supafreak wrote:Who will take over from spud eventually ? Sussie or Jane ? They really are unelectable. https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/01/18/bad...
Well it seems someone has found the perfect candidate.
I just almost spat my coffee every where! . please no.. Or Maybe this is good news
— Politic@l Spinner (@lesstenny) January 18, 2023
Makes The Liberal party more unhinged.. What's your thoughts? #auspol pic.twitter.com/bL0IXKlYhc
This article explains the problem in Australia. Systematic
https://apple.news/A5xlMmrZFTDqIyR-aEwFFAA
Interesting thread by RW
Imagine having Megan Davis personally explain the Voice to you, and still walking out and parroting your silly 15 questions to the media #insiders
— Rachel Withers (@rachelrwithers) February 4, 2023
Wow I found this really interesting
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-11/mystery-community-of-aboriginal-a...
Great article above. Thanks for sharing. Some incredible pics.
Just watching the Indigenous All Stars taking it up to the Maoris on their home territory. Great game.
Heard a bit of Treaty by Yothu Yindi popping up through half time...got me thinking.
That song came out in 1991, 25 years or so after the 1967 referendum to include Indigenous Australians in the constitution...as people.
Yet it's been over 30 years since that song was released and still we're no closer to a treaty of any sort. Even though it was promised by the Hawke government at the time.
That's shameful.
We need a treaty for the good of all.
https://www.abc.net.au/doublej/music-reads/features/the-story-of-yothu-y...
seeds wrote:Wow I found this really interesting
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-11/mystery-community-of-aboriginal-a...
Is a good read.
Been quite a few good articles lately, tthe Alice Springs issue is really starting to bring about some real truth telling.
"What I learnt from an Aboriginal Elder"
https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/12/what-i-learnt-from-an-aboriginal-el...
And this, pity the full article is paywalled
seeds wrote:This article explains the problem in Australia. Systematic
https://apple.news/A5xlMmrZFTDqIyR-aEwFFAA
Claiming systemic racism on the basis of a handful of indigenous cases? What about all the non-indigenous Australians who have also been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned: just bad luck? The argument only goes one way.
His ongoing games, however, reveal his apology today for what it is: a hollow gesture from a man who doesn’t care about anything beyond politics. https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/02/13/sor...
The Abbott government’s 2014 budget defunded Aboriginal-specific childcare centres, taking away $81 million and the financial support for 38 Aboriginal child and family centres. It cut more than $500 million from Indigenous programs. That has resulted in a decade of lost opportunity for a generation of Aboriginal children. https://www.smh.com.au/national/do-ask-alice-why-my-people-need-a-voice-...
Supafreak wrote:The Abbott government’s 2014 budget defunded Aboriginal-specific childcare centres, taking away $81 million and the financial support for 38 Aboriginal child and family centres. It cut more than $500 million from Indigenous programs. That has resulted in a decade of lost opportunity for a generation of Aboriginal children. https://www.smh.com.au/national/do-ask-alice-why-my-people-need-a-voice-...
These child and family centres were initially known as Multifunctional Aboriginal Children's Services (MACS) and the initiative/funding came directly from the recommendations of wide ranging Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission. I had the overseeing role here in Vic to get them established from the ground up and to ensure their ongoing financial viability. Many were great successes and a positive vehicle to bridge gaps both within the Aboriginal and between the Aboriginal and broader communities (kids from all backgrounds were warmly welcomed). The MACS initiative also created formal early childhood training programs thru the universities and colleges to allow Aboriginal staff to manage/ work in these centres. Typing this I'm remembering the many great community people I had the honour to meet and work with, all now gone. Vale. Sadly, the defunding of these programs is just another example of how the Aboriginal communities have been screwed over.
Sad that this service is now gone GS . Where did the money get redirected too I wonder. Between twiggy and gina they could easily fund such a program, big clive could chuck in as well. They do alright out of digging holes in “ their “ land .
Never knew that neck chains were still being used up to 1958 . https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/07/how-western-austr...
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