The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Supafreak wrote:Never knew that neck chains were still being used up to 1958 . https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/07/how-western-austr...
Supafreak. Hi. Disgusting is all I can say.
Naa marni (Hello)
Voice to Parliament National Campaign Lab and Launch
https://www.tandanya.com.au/
Tandanya National Aboriginal Institute
Thanks for visiting!
Sorry but our Gallery is closed until after the VIPs big Pow Wow..
200 VIPs will be treated to free performances by some of Australia's finest Indigenous Artists.
Ngaityalya -(Thank You for sampling our Rich Indigenous Culture!)
[YES] Program
15 Feb Exclusive [YES] Briefing is strictly limited to Union Activists (4:30am - 7:30am)
19 Feb PM + Linda [YES] Launch @ Inner West Council
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/voice-to-parliament/pm-albanes...
21 Feb Welcome to Country Drinks : (5pm-7pm)
22 Feb Lab Day 1 (9am-5pm) Hint (Kitchen Table Teals)
23 Feb Lab Day 2 (9am-12pm)
Preparations are being made...Yes! Right now (Live)
23 Feb [YES] Campaign Launch
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8iii2y
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/20/voice-referendum-...
State ALP Govts are aligning Indigenous Voice Bills to chorus the National Voice [YES] Campaign.
National Action Week continues...
https://nit.com.au/18-02-2023/5007/national-week-of-action-urges-yes-to-...
Unis vote [YES] to Indoctrination
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/23/indigenous-voice-...
Youth will vote [YES]...all else!
https://womensagenda.com.au/politics/young-people-may-decide-the-outcome...
Next Level...I know ya know about it...
PM: You want Detail...(Pause for umpteenth breath!) I'll shove the bloody detail down yer throats...
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/pm-adamant-an-enormou...
Reffo (Cost ya $20 to Vote Maybe!) Maybe!
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/millions-of-australians-will-soon-vo...
PS:
*Tonight's [YES] Launch News is being Syndicated World Wide...just thought to share that!
* National Action orders News media (smh) to suppress News Polls drop in [YES] Vote...well durr!
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/support-for-indigenous-voice-fal...
GuySmiley wrote: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.
GuySmiley, Supafreak. Hi to you both, always good writings from your end.
Screwed over from day dot. Saddens me deeply, not unfamiliar to a few us, a recurring theme in this country, we just go around and around, another vulnerable group benefiting from a sound program and dedicated people like yourself (GuySmiley) to just fizz out and see what happens in the next budget and the next budget and the one that follows that. I find it mildly amusing but in reality the programs aimed and dedicated to aid individuals or groups always seem to run on political and budgetary timeframes, not on humanitarian ones. When will we ever learn how to treat our common man/person/friend.AW.
do you guys ever get tired of sucking each others dicks?
Why ? Do you want to have a turn ?
We’re just peeing bahahaha
https://m.
loungelizard wrote:do you guys ever get tired of sucking each others dicks?
Loungelizard. Kind words mate ! What interesting points of view or intelligence do you bring to the discussion ? Or are you just another ignorant Australian who prefers just to hide behind a rock and pretend Aboriginal people don’t exist ? I’d love to know your thoughts on the Alice Springs situation at present, but maybe in reality I don’t. Keep up the fight for whatever rattles your cage, that’d be a babies cot id suggest.
ill take that as a "no"! !t wasn't related to any particular topic, just a curiosity as to what you get out of being in furious agreement for year after year after year.. no-one seems to learn anything, no-one has their opinions changed, I'll check back in in a few years time and (health permitting , I wish you all, and myself, well ). nothing will have altered (except the pseudonyms, its "Alfred Wallace" now i see).
p.s. guy smiley, I'm a fan of that menu log commercial too, I must say I have regarded you with (gulp)
some affection since you owned up to that (but not enough to join the dick-sucking circle)
Carry on chaps!
Dont know if this has been mentioned anywhere else in the forums, but how's Lidia Thorpe's form on the weekend trying to stop the Mardi gra by laying on the road in front of a float, im betting even the Greens are breathing a sigh of relief she is no longer with them..
BTW. I wonder if it was someone from the public doing the same if they would be arrested
Has anyone figured out what was going on there?
I mean she was on a float making a statement, best acheived by being seen by lots of peopole, but then laid down to protest the parade as a whole? I'm not getting it..?
Maybe just one of those weird narc moments that make sense at the time.
The initial reports were Lydia lay down in front of the Police float as a protest at Police, claiming the original protest march in 1978 was as a result of injustices by police against black and brown skinned LGBTQI people (not true) and that the presence of a police float was "pinkwashing". It then emerged that the float she stopped was a youth charity float, not the police. I lost intrest in her reasoning after that.
This type of pointless performative politics should be below someone who actually sits in Parliament and has ample opportunity there to express their position and actually do something about it. Sadly it seems all sides engage in it. If you ever have no life and actually watch proceedings in the Senate Chamber you can understand why Keating called them "unrepresentative swill" The likes of Thorpe, Pauline Hanson, Mal Roberts and Liberals like Bridget McKenzie and screaming banshee Michalea Cash among others. Attention seeking drop kicks everywhere, I wouldn't give half of them the keys to the chook shed, let alone $200plus k's a year to make laws, yet here we are.
I am amazed anyone is surprised with this.
This brainless idiot thought it was a good idea to have a relationship with the president of The Rebels bikie gang.This alone should exclude her from representing in any positioin ,let alone a federal politician.
No credibility or brains!
"A video from about 9pm on Saturday on Oxford Street shows the independent senator walking behind the NSW Police float yelling "f*** the police", before lying down on her back in protest, momentarily halting the parade.
Two police officers then approach Senator Thorpe as the crowd begins to boo.
"Get rid of her! Get rid of her," a person in the crowd can be heard chanting during the incident.
Senator Thorpe then got to her feet and could be seen talking with police and Mardi Gras crew."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-26/federal-senator-lidia-thorpe-remo...
The cops should have pepper sprayed her in the face when she started advancing on that cop in front of her....to walk forward into his face was her trying to act tough and intimadate.
Smack her down fast and with zero time for her to protest.
It’s like the time Hanson pulled that stunt climbing Uluru, unedifying sliding back down on her arse
Brainless bookends representing who again?
GuySmiley wrote:It’s like the time Hanson pulled that stunt climbing Uluru, unedifying sliding back down on her arse
Brainless bookends representing who again?
Representing themselves.
I always wonder if Koori nations understand they were always going to be taken over by some other nation. Way of the world. Maybe if the Indos had been the ones it would have been better with the no alcohol from Islam but I dont think the indigenous of Timor Leste would agree.
two balanced articles in one day...
(I honestly didn't think the guardian had it in em)
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2023/feb/27/whe...
Maybe the world - incl The Guardian - has passed Peak Gonzo. Here's hoping!
sypkan wrote:two balanced articles in one day...
(I honestly didn't think the guardian had it in em)
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2023/feb/27/whe...
sypkan wrote:two balanced articles in one day...
(I honestly didn't think the guardian had it in em)
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2023/feb/27/whe...
Yeah while there is much there personally I dont agree with, it is surprising quite a reasonable angle and genuine article.
Unlike the comments below the article, which are of no surprise.
Is voting on this referendum mandatory?
loungelizard wrote:do you guys ever get tired of sucking each others dicks?
How on earth is this disgusting comment ok on here?
In a forum where people are trying to discuss significant issues.
I've seen people banned for alot less than this.
Surely SN moderators have a role to play here in eradicating this kind of commentary and allowing those who want to discuss issues the freedom to do so without purile attacks.
You should be completely ashamed of yourself Lounge Lizard.
What a disgusting human you are.
Watching late afternoon ABC today and I forget the blokes name but he was saying Dutton keeps asking for more details in the hope that Australians will be confused by so much detail that they won’t understand and vote no . It’s pretty clear that a yes vote will have First Nations People recognition in the constitution and a voice to parliament in matters that directly affect them . The finer details will be decided by government if the people of Australia vote yes . Dutton doing his best to throw a spanner in the works . Sit down boofhead . https://twitter.com/ronnisalt/status/1638768445033693186?s=46&t=5RczxwAfzXe7hKRZb3LMIA. https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/03/23/heart
Supafreak wrote:Watching late afternoon ABC today and I forget the blokes name but he was saying Dutton keeps asking for more details in the hope that Australians will be confused by so much detail that they won’t understand and vote no . It’s pretty clear that a yes vote will have First Nations People recognition in the constitution and a voice to parliament in matters that directly affect them . The finer details will be decided by government if the people of Australia vote yes . Dutton doing his best to throw a spanner in the works . Sit down boofhead . https://twitter.com/ronnisalt/status/1638768445033693186?s=46&t=5RczxwAf.... https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/03/23/heart
Supafreak. Dutton is a goose (actually most geese i know are way smarter and better looking, although, i think Magpie Geese and Dutton share one common thing, both have a cranial knob ) and is attempting to use some of the old ‘Howard’ tactics of stalling to confuse the public and as you say, hit voters with so much information they become confused.
Yes, voting should be compulsory, after all, it’s yours, its mine, but really, its theirs and always will be. Let’s do this for the people we’ve down trodden the most .
People who don’t vote, well, i don’t want to hear any whinging after the fact.AW
You pro voice people, can you please answer this question???
Indigenous advisory bodies have quite a history of not being very successful or even completely failing the most recent example federally being ATSIC (that had a good trial period of 14 years)
Why on earth would you implement something in the constitution that has such a poor history of success?
Doesn't it make more sense to get a voice up and running and prove its worth first?
And then maybe if you prove it can work and has worth you might have an argument to implement it in the constitution.
Although if you can prove it works and it does work then the irony is there shouldn't be any need to implement it in the constitution, it either works or it doesn't.
Im sure most people would support another crack at a federal Indigenous advisory body, what most people have an issue with and for good reason is changing the constitution.
@indo maybe listen to what Professor Marcia Langton had to say yesterday on what your talking about . If you’re not sure where to look skip to 44.30 minute mark. The whole video may answer some more questions if you’re interested in listening. https://www.youtube.com/live/_dwC0xmBCKA?feature=share
You pro voice people, can you please answer this question???Indigenous advisory bodies have quite a history of not being very successful or even completely failing the most recent example federally being ATSIC (that had a good trial period of 14 years)
Why on earth would you implement something in the constitution that has such a poor history of success?
Doesn't it make more sense to get a voice up and running and prove its worth first?
And then maybe if you prove it can work and has worth you might have an argument to implement it in the constitution.
Although if you can prove it works and it does work then the irony is there shouldn't be any need to implement it in the constitution, it either works or it doesn't.
Im sure most people would support another crack at a federal Indigenous advisory body, what most people have an issue with and for good reason is changing the constitution.[
@info
You speak about the past failure of Aboriginal Advisory Bodies (PLURAL) as the basis of your argument against the Voice. Yet you only cite ATSIC.
QUESTION: What other Advisory Bodies do you have in mind?
ATSIC was not an Advisory Body at all so comparing it to the Voice is inaccurate or dishonest or both.
ATSIC was first and foremost a funding body providing Commonwealth Govt grants to local Co-ops to provide services in the areas of: health, welfare, outreach, education liaison, school retention, children's services etc etc. ATSIC funds also helped Co-ops run their administration and in some cases provided the seed capital to establish businesses. ATSIC and other Commonwealth and State Govt departments often worked closely (including funding) to help Co-ops achieve program objectives.
You grew up in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. The cities of Morwell and Bairnsdale and Lake Tyers had Aboriginal Co-ops in receipt of ATSIC funding and running highly successful programs like the ones I listed immediate above.
While I am not denying there were some issues around accounting (in the strict Accounting/ Bookkeeping sense) for the funding provided with some Co-ops and even some very isolated cases of the misuse of funds to say, as you do, that ATSIC was a outright failure is denying thousands of very positive outcomes for Aboriginal families and individuals. It's a dishonest and disingenuous stance.
Pretty Sure the YES Plebiscite / Voice Reffo ~ Are designed to lift Gay / Mob Voters on Rolls.
Both were so low...Voice "Roll call"will boost majority of new 1st Nation voters toward ALP
Yeah! It's all about First Nation rights.
Albo don't need the Voice to pass...it's just click bait for 10% bonus First Nation Voter Rego Base.
Soon as they enrol (Can burn Referendum or not) Albo / ALP automatically lock in 10 safe seats.
People all say...bad luck as ALP party on...Winners!
Read on below to see how little Albo / ALP care...
Question voters will be asked at this year's Oct -Dec referendum held on a Saturday!
A Proposed Law : to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?
Anyone else see how the wording is lost in the irony...
Bne Olympics 23rd July-8 Aug 2032 Fine& Sunny 22* (Dates locked in 10 years ahead of Ceremony!)
Onto lesser important news...coz that's still kinda handy for gossip & Trolls.
Changing Constitution for First People...No Dates are set coz it's 10x less important as Sport!
PM says to keep every Sat' free thru Spring into Summer & also the last Sat' of the year just in case!
Correct! No one make plans or Leave the Country during the last Quarter of 2023...just coz!
Again! Only when First Nation Enrollment Plans are in Place will they call the Date!
So! Now the PM's Voice is holding Aussie's Spring > Summer to ransom...(No one book a holiday!)
Who could be so fucking useless to hold Aussies to ransom for 3 months > tbb can Smell Dead Meat!
Experts say Referendums never succeed for some strange reason...Gee! Can't see how!
Not having a set date has just quietly pissed off the swingin' 10% needed ... fuckin' useless turds!
tbb is aghast at the disrespect shown to first people...mostly by our PM & Committee!
How is it that locking in the Date is more difficult than the wording? Coz that's Impossible!
So! Are we saying not one of 365 days is Lucky enough to take a punt...coz that is pissweak!
How is it that not one Aussie gives a shit or sees that as disrespectful. Huh! Deadheads we are!
Party at the Mob's House...
'When!'
PM reckons it's on a Saturday or somethin'
'Are you going?'
Nah! Can't find the Time! Pretty sure I'll be workin' or doing somethin' on that Saturday!
Go Team Oz!
Does tbb have to say ... Currently 101 Nation busting Headlines you will never read in the News.
Anyone still left on the Roll can vote whenever for whatever...
PM : "Really doesn't matter...but make sure it's sometime on a Saturday or you'll cop a fine!"... well durr!
Below is an article cut and pasted on the history of federal Indigenous advisory bodies.
Again proving it works first, isn't too much of an ask more just common sense, but cementing something in the constitution on the off chance it might work is just ludicrous.
And the whole (new as of this week it seems) narrative these bodies work, really doesn't seem to be backed up by any great evidence, quite the opposite shit has generally got worse. (BTW. there is apparently about 100 indigenous advisory bodies already)
And when Albo spends 3 hrs in Alice Springs and then 3 days at the tennis, its pretty hard to take his motivation seriously, quite obviously its more about appearing to have some type of legacy notched up like Krudd and his sorry gig
Anyway here is the article.
"Warren Mundine: Indigenous Voice will fail like the four attempts at a national Indigenous body that went before it
The likely structure of the proposed Voice to Parliament reads much like the previous four Indigenous “voices” - all ineffective or clouded in controversy, conflict or disinterest, writes Warren Mundine.
The proposed constitutional Voice to Parliament will be the fifth attempt in 50 years to create a national, representative Indigenous body.
There’s no reason to think this body will be any less a failure than its predecessors, but its constitutional status will ensure we’re stuck with it.
In 1973 the Whitlam government created the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC) with elected representatives to provide advice to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and consult on issues affecting Aboriginal people.
The election of the NACC’s 41 committee members was finalised by mid December 1973.
Within a few months the body was at war with the Minister and the department.
Not wanting to be merely “consultative” it passed a resolution in the first week of February 1974 to change its name to replace the words “consultative committee” with “congress”.
It also demanded control of the Aboriginal Affairs budget, began writing a new constitution with direct powers to make policy and laws and called for the Minister to resign.
The NACC spent much of its short life in battle over itself.
The Hiatt Committee review, commissioned by the Fraser government in 1976, concluded the body had not functioned as a consultative committee, been effective in providing advice to government or made its activities known to most Aboriginal people.
A dissenting report by Hiatt Committee member and former National Aboriginal Conference chairwoman Lowitja O’Donohue rejected the concept of a nationally elected Aboriginal advisory body at all “because it is more likely to produce politicians than advisers”.
Announcing its replacement in 1977, then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Ian Viner said NACC had failed as a channel between government and Aboriginal people and as a forum for Aboriginal views.
He added that it had produced a misconception among Aboriginal people that it would be their parliament rather than a consultative group.
The NACC was replaced by the NAC, another elected body.
In 1979, the NAC asked the Federal Government to consider granting a treaty (for which the NAC later coined the term Makarrata) and demanded the Prime Minister meet at the NAC headquarters to discuss it.
In 1980 the body set up a special committee to ask Aboriginal people what they want from a Makarrata.
Ultimately, that endeavour also failed.
The Hawke Government’s Coombs Review commissioned in 1983 concluded the NAC was out of touch, not well regarded by Aboriginal people and hadn’t effectively used its position and platform to influence government.
A 1985 Commonwealth Auditor-General audit, which found financial mismanagement and irregularities and breaches of its charter and rules, was the NAC’s final nail in its coffin.
The Hawke government shut it down that year.
So ended a nearly 12-year experiment with a national representative Indigenous body, one marked by battles with government, in-fighting amongst members and a failure to achieve much at all.
But memory is short, and the idea of a national, elected Indigenous body was resurrected in 1990 with the creation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), which was also responsible for administering Aboriginal programs and service delivery.
Geoff Clark was elected to ATSIC in 1996 and as chairperson in 1999.
His position was marred by accusations of sexual assault — criminal charges did not proceed to trial but a jury found him liable in civil proceedings.
He was convicted of obstructing police and riotous behaviour in 2003 in connection with a pub brawl (the latter charge was later dismissed on appeal), for which ATSIC commissioners approved funding tens of thousands towards his legal costs.
Ray Robinson, ATSIC Deputy Chair from 1996 to 2003, was also under a cloud, with allegations in relation to alleged conflicts of interest and use of travel allowances.
He was convicted of offences relating to misappropriating ATSIC funds for personal use.
ATSIC commissioners were elected, and both Clark and Robinson were re-elected in 2002.
ATSIC’s ability to function was severely constrained.
Robinson ultimately resigned in 2003 but Clark remained defiant. Following his 2003 convictions, the government suspended Clark as ATSIC chairperson but he successfully appealed.
The Howard government then stripped ATSIC of its powers in 2003 and disbanded it in 2005 with the full support of the Labor Opposition.
Whatever disquiet there was among Aboriginal people over ATSIC’s abolishment (and some of this was really about it being abolished without enough consultation) there was never great engagement among Aboriginal people in ATSIC’s political functions, with average voter turnout persistently below 25 per cent.
Five years later, in 2010, the Rudd government created the fourth national, elected Indigenous representative body, the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples (Congress).
Where its predecessors were marred by conflict and controversy, Congress struggled with relevance.
Fewer than 10,000 Indigenous people signed up as members to elect Congress delegates.
It went out with a whimper rather than a bang in 2019 after the Abbott government withdrew funding in 2013 and Minister Ken Wyatt declined to revive the organisation after it went into administration in 2019.
We don’t know the details of the fifth attempt to implement a national body — the proposed constitutional Voice — because the Albanese Government refuses to release any.
But the 2021 Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report to the Australian Government is frequently cited as the likely structure.
Read it and you’ll see many of the same features as the four previous Indigenous “voices” that were tried and failed.
Four Indigenous “voices”.
All ineffective or clouded in controversy, conflict or disinterest.
All shut down by Labor and Coalition governments alike.
Importantly, when these bodies found themselves at odds with the government (or at odds within themselves) legal challenges ensued.
Embedding the concept of an Indigenous Voice in the constitution won’t make it a success. But will make remedial action much harder if it fails.
This is a key reason its proponents want it entrenched in the constitution.
Former Prime Minister (and barrister) and Voice supporter Malcolm Turnbull has said “its constitutional status will mean it cannot be abolished, as ATSIC was, and it cannot be ignored or its advice put on a shelf to gather dust. The Voice will be heard and it will be heeded.”
Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO is Director of the Indigenous Forum at the Centre for Independent Studies."
So none of that cut and paste revisionist history from Mundine supports his/your position because none of the examples offered became fully operational or were designed to be advisory in nature ….. BUT, it’s all the Indigenous communities fault coz we all know how government gets it right 100% of the time in implementing its policy agenda, right?
That and whole lot of deflection and dishonesty thrown in to create confusion
Warren Mundine from the Centre for Independent Studies is your source material.
You are fucking kidding.
Paid for Uncle Tom representing the mining billionaires.
Like Jacinta Price.
You are like the Andrew Bolt of SN.
Racism cloaked in stupidity, dressed as "conservatism".
At least your spelling and grammar has improved a bit of late.
Warren Mundine is a turncoat who is on a crusade against the Alp and who has always assumed he speaks for all mob. As odious a character as Lidia to my mind, and I’m really no fan of hers. He might raise some fair points about governments fucking up previous attempts at indigenous representation (none of which I care to fact check but concede are probably true to varying degrees.) But his jumping at shadows about ‘detail’ is 100% his new party’s line, designed to obfuscate the issue, confuse the punters and ultimately defeat the yes vote.
That said, having had exposure through my work to native title and the many issues that come with it I’m not confident the Voice will be successful, even if it gets up. White fella law is still white fella law in the end and lip service and performative bullshit are a lot easier than structural change or meaningful reconciliation.
But then seeing all our most repulsive public figures fall in behind the no vote makes me want to vote yes on principle.
https://m.
https://m.
adam12 wrote:Warren Mundine from the Centre for Independent Studies is your source material.
You are fucking kidding.
Paid for Uncle Tom representing the mining billionaires.
Like Jacinta Price.
You are like the Andrew Bolt of SN.
Racism cloaked in stupidity, dressed as "conservatism".
At least your spelling and grammar has improved a bit of late.
+1 to this comment.
The conservatist's catch cry has been 'close the gap'. This one really irks me.
It's all about closing the gap so blackfellas can hopefully (!?) become more like westerners, become more immersed in our 'culture' and our societal frameworks.
Interestingly it's not around the other way. Unless its the footy, then we aspire to their greatness....but as long as they just play and shut up...or we'll boo them.
Close the gap.
Should change it to 'shut your trap' and just listen, detach from your perspective of everything from a Westernized viewpoint.
And stop quoting the same 2 morons ffs!!
Old article but worthy..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-27/aboriginal-people-pressured-to-lo...
"Aboriginal people feel pressured to lose values, culture to be successful, study says"
I expect the vast majority of us feel like that.
Wouldn't it be nice to redefine the meaning of the word successful.
adam12 wrote:Warren Mundine from the Centre for Independent Studies is your source material.
You are fucking kidding.
Paid for Uncle Tom representing the mining billionaires.
Like Jacinta Price.
You are like the Andrew Bolt of SN.
Racism cloaked in stupidity, dressed as "conservatism".
At least your spelling and grammar has improved a bit of late.
I can’t stop fucking laughing. that was gold “ the Andrew Bolt of SN “
Good post adam12, short and sharp :)
adam12 wrote:Warren Mundine from the Centre for Independent Studies is your source material.
You are fucking kidding.
Paid for Uncle Tom representing the mining billionaires.
Like Jacinta Price.
You are like the Andrew Bolt of SN.
Racism cloaked in stupidity, dressed as "conservatism".
At least your spelling and grammar has improved a bit of late.
I can only laugh at the irony and hypocrisy
You suggest others are racist while you call indigenous people "uncle toms", basically a racial slur against indigenous people who you believe think or act like white people, because in your mind, indigenous people should all act and think a certain way.
Not to mention i am not the one here wanting different voices of representation based on ethnicity, a very backwards concept that some could even argue is racist in its self.
And to have the gall to even use the word stupidity, when your trying to argue the case of enshrining something in the constitution that has a history of failure, fck me dead.
I mean how stupid am i to look at history and learn from it, it's a much better idea to just go fuck yeah i like the sound of a voice lets enshrine it in the constitution forever.
Which is classic progressives way of doing things, change for change sake and throwing shit at a wall hoping something sticks.
BTW Any link between mining and indigenous people isn't all that much of a surprise, mining is one of the biggest employer of indigenous people and POSSIBLY the biggest employer of indigenous people in remote communities, and of course these are generally the communities with biggest issues and pretty much no other employment options.
Many Indigenous communities also generate incomes from mining royalties not only just mines but lease land for infrastructure like road access etc this sometimes goes direct to communities or goes to ABA .and is worth hundreds of millions per year.
But yeah i will get in first, true it's not all roses, looking at you Rio Tinto.
Wyatt said Dutton’s continuing calls for answers to the so-called 15 questions about the voice process was a “smokescreen”.
“I think if Peter was given the answers to the 15 questions in tablet form from Moses, he still would not accept them,” https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/24/ken-wyatt-warns-o... Ken Wyatt warns Liberals that opposing Indigenous voice could add to ‘perceptions’ party is ‘racist’
"I mean how stupid am i to look at history and learn from it"
History hey?
Well there's a can of worms....especially on this very topic.
AndyM wrote:"Aboriginal people feel pressured to lose values, culture to be successful, study says"
I expect the vast majority of us feel like that.
Wouldn't it be nice to redefine the meaning of the word successful.
While this is a fair point, relatively speaking...i think it's entirely missing the mark in this conversation.
Consider past trauma and it's effects.
This especially also goes to Indo Dreaming.
I wonder if he understands the 'historical' context of past trauma and it's effects.
Would be interested in Indo's take on trauma and where it sits in his perspective of aboriginal Australia because i think he genuinely believes he has good intentions, and i respect that.
But i'm not sure he's looking far enough back in, 'history'...to get the full picture.
This would be a worthwhile read before any response.
It's only a 2 minute read.
https://healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/learn/health-topics/healing/trauma/#:~:....
Indo. Who’s penning those tales of history you refer to? Guy made a great counter argument to your position that’s sounds legit. You haven’t responded.
It’s sad that this has been hijacked by political allegiances. Bloody hell, are we becoming the USA.
Great point SR
Conservatives don’t do empathy.
I always laughed whenever Indo called himself a Conservative. This isn’t America. It’s not your footy team. This shouldn’t be politicised.
I mean how stupid am i to look at history and NOT learn from it, it's a much better idea to just go fuck yeah i like the INFORMATION I GET FROM MY PREFERRED FAR RIGHT REACTIONARY SILOS AND IGNORE THE VAST MAJORITY OF EXPERT COMMENTARY AND TO SAY I HATE THE sound of a voice SO lets NEVER enshrine it in the constitution forever.
There you go @info I’ve corrected it for you, you can thank me later although I’m truth you would have been better to just stop at “I mean how stupid am I” you verbose ninny
seeds wrote:Great point SR
Conservatives don’t do empathy.
I always laughed whenever Indo called himself a Conservative. This isn’t America. It’s not your footy team. This shouldn’t be politicised.
Thankyou Seeds.
Yes, agreed.. furthermore the Australian political sphere currently wholly represents the face of how indigenous people may likely view the loss of their land and culture, as it has for 200 odd years.....
Which i guess is the whole point of changing the constitution, installing an indigenous voice in that same political sphere, to represent the indigenous people of their own country.
One small step, one small gesture, but a shift in consciousness especially for those who carry the burden of intergenerational trauma.
southernraw wrote:AndyM wrote:"Aboriginal people feel pressured to lose values, culture to be successful, study says"
I expect the vast majority of us feel like that.
Wouldn't it be nice to redefine the meaning of the word successful.While this is a fair point, relatively speaking...i think it's entirely missing the mark in this conversation.
Consider past trauma and it's effects.
This especially also goes to Indo Dreaming.
I wonder if he understands the 'historical' context of past trauma and it's effects.
Would be interested in Indo's take on trauma and where it sits in his perspective of aboriginal Australia because i think he genuinely believes he has good intentions, and i respect that.
But i'm not sure he's looking far enough back in, 'history'...to get the full picture.
This would be a worthwhile read before any response.
It's only a 2 minute read.
https://healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/learn/health-topics/healing/trauma/#:~:....
I was responding specifically to that ABC article, which doesn’t mention trauma once.
I thought the quote “"White Australians should look at themselves, look at their own culture and assess its strengths and weaknesses in the same way that they daily assess the strengths and weaknesses of Aboriginal culture” was worth thinking about though, which is kind of what I did.
Indo "I can only laugh at the irony and hypocrisy
You suggest others are racist while you call indigenous people "uncle toms", basically a racial slur against indigenous people who you believe think or act like white people, because in your mind, indigenous people should all act and think a certain way."
FYI
"Is “Uncle Tom” a racial slur?
No.
Uncle Tom was a character in the book, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” written by Harriet Beecher Stowe, and published in 1852. Though a novel, the book was groundbreaking and a runaway bestseller, chiefly because it exposed the realities of slavery to people who had no personal experience or knowledge of the abhorrent custom. Harriet Beecher Stowe was an unabashed abolitionist, and her goal in writing the novel was to expose slavery in all its ugly reality. In the book, Uncle Tom is eventually murdered by a slave master.
When President Lincoln met Stowe in 1862, he is alleged to have said, “So you're the little woman who wrote the book that made this Great War?”
It wasn’t until 1919 that the term “Uncle Tom” became an insult, used when a black person condemns another black person for kowtowing to white authority, or for being excessively subservient to whites. The term in its new meaning was coined by Rev. George Alexander McGuire, who in a speech to the first meeting of the Universal Negro Improvement Association, proclaimed, “the Uncle Tom nigger has got to go, and his place must be taken by the new leader of the Negro race, not a black man with a white heart, but a black man with a black heart."
Today, it’s one of the greatest insults a black person can apply to another black person. It’s derogatory and condemnatory, but it isn’t “racist.”." by James Keenley, Educator/Author (from Quora)
seeds wrote:Indo. Who’s penning those tales of history you refer to? Guy made a great counter argument to your position that’s sounds legit. You haven’t responded.
It’s sad that this has been hijacked by political allegiances. Bloody hell, are we becoming the USA.
A great counter argument Really?
His counter argument is they weren't designed or implemented properly or tried to claim elsewhere that advisory bodies like ATSIC weren't advisory bodies.
Nobody is penning tales of history it's not an opinion that federal indigenous advisory bodies like ATSIC failed, from what ive read it had issues with corruption and after 13 years both Labor and LNP agreed on scrapping it.
Its not at all radical or right wing to want something like this proven to be successful before cementing it in the constitution, it's the complete opposite it's common sense, and this is the angle LNP should be taking.
They should come out and say we 100% support implementing a voice (even without much details) but we dont support implementing it in the constitution because once it's there it cant be changed or very hard too and they belevie its irresponsible to do so especially with the history of past failures of similar schemes.
Even agree to have ten year trial period where its promised who is ever in power will not scrap it and then have at set date where its independently evaluated on different set measures that are agreed on now.
Basically create a pass or fail mark, then if it can be proven to be successful you might have a case to implement it in the constitution.
Which only real purpose is to ensure it cant be scrapped.
This is the angle LNP should be taking, it's a completely logical, responsible, common sense angle and it nullifies Labor's aim to paint LNP in a negative light and it takes away Albo's aim of having some grand legacy on the issue.
And OMG dont kid yourself this whole deal is 100% political.
@ Southerraw im assuming Bluedimond, we have been through most of your discussion points before, we know both of our stances and we dont agree, lets not derail the current topic of the voice and in particular why on earth you would cement something in the constitution that is completely unproven and based on history more likely to fail than succeed.
BTW. We havent even touched on the extremely high likelihood of corruption around a voice in a whole manner of ways, from influence of money on who gets on the board, to influence of money on views they put forward and vote on, and we are talking about billions of dollars and all kinds of organizations's, communities, needs wanting that money.
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