The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
The support of him, by big names, really disturbed me when he died. Beggars belief!
Indo, Former deputy state director of the Victorian Liberal Party.
Lessons for Dutton: Play on the fringes, get fringe political results
And from that bigger, more diverse membership pool, we can preselect better candidates, who better represent and reflect the community in terms of shared values, gender, ethnicity and professional background, and who represent the values of mainstream voters.
Instead, in recent weeks we have seen some Victorian Liberal MPs continue to narrow that base by promoting or defending public rallies that marginalise the LGBTQI community.
‘We need to stop dog whistling’: MPs call for Dutton to return Liberal Party to centre
This is taking place at a time when middle Australia is increasingly socially progressive but economically anxious. They don’t find the culture wars personally relevant either in terms of reflecting their concerns for the present or addressing their hopes and fears about the future.
The problem the Liberal Party is now discovering is that when you start playing on the political fringes, you start getting fringe political party results.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/lessons-for-dutton-play-on-t...
Good one @i focus. We need to reject us style culture wars. I try to discuss things I see with my own eyes in real life, rather than imaginary online problems. And I don’t see any of these issues in day to day life. So every time people try to drag me into these discussion I warn them not to bring the us issues into my house.
"They share equal citizenship with all of us but have distinctive rights and interests."
https://johnmenadue.com/the-reality-that-supports-the-recognition-of-the...
adam12 wrote:Waveman said "You missed the point. Interview concludes “Why would we restrict the voice to making representations that can’t be challenged in court?”
Firstly, it is a 30 second grab, not the complete interview. I don't know what was said in the rest of it, nor do you.
Secondly, whatever was said, by her or anyone else, the legislation presented to Parliament by the attorney general this past sitting week, and the detail provided by the government, outline the process exactly as I described. Read that and don't rely on cherry picked 30 second radio interview grabs from dubious partisan sources gleaned from the internet.
Thirdly, the sentence you quote is not inconsistent with the proposition I outlined, if a representation is not "heard", which is a formal process in specific areas related to Indigenous Australians, a decision or law can be challenged in the High Court.
Get it out of your head that the Voice does anything more than give the right to be heard.
The source of the interview is irrelevant.
And neither you or anyone else can be certain about future interpretation of the constitution.
No surprises here , Liberals don’t care what the polls say they’re listening to Dr No . https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/liberal-party-to-oppose-voice-to.... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-02/voice-referendum-appeal-to-people.... https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/new-poll-suggests-voice-to-par...
Potatoe is in the right colored bin,well done.
Waveman
"The source of the interview is irrelevant.
And neither you or anyone else can be certain about future interpretation of the constitution.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/brown-study-263"
The source is very relevant, particularly when it's a cherry pick. Why didn't they publish the entire interview?
Speaking of sources, you can just keep reading the Spectator and listening to Rowan Dean and we will agree to disagree, and let the High Court interpret the Constitution.
Reply to me if you want but I'm out of this argument too, got better things to do than debate ill-informed racists and idiots on a surf website. It's like herding cats. Pointless.
Wilhelm Scream wrote:"Never wrestle a pig in their pen. You both get covered in their shit...and the pig likes it!"
Ain't it the truth.
So when the voice gets up with a big yes from the Australian people, will spud get the message and step down ? I doubt it and the next 10 in line are no better, what a pathetic bunch of leftovers. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-06/ken-wyatt-quits-liberals-over-voi...
Supafreak wrote:So when the voice gets up with a big yes from the Australian people, will spud get the message and step down ? I doubt it and the next 10 in line are no better, what a pathetic bunch of leftovers. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-06/ken-wyatt-quits-liberals-over-voi...
Spot on Supa, and I reckon they will be on the wrong side of history on this one.
Team No (NFI):
‘Need more detail’
‘Don’t want to divide
‘Are worried about change’
‘Oppose a ‘Canberra voice’
Wilhelm Scream wrote:"Never wrestle a pig in their pen. You both get covered in their shit...and the pig likes it!"
Or
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Mark Twain.
It's all just shouting into the void Andy.
I found this a good(long)read. Great to get a picture of where she comes from and how it has shaped her. No doubt far more intelligent than most politicians. Probably reinforces the reason why conservatives don’t want to hear a Voice.
https://apple.news/AANE4EWZvTd-qRCEHmYTd2g
seeds wrote:I found this a good(long)read. Great to get a picture of where she comes from and how it has shaped her. No doubt far more intelligent than most politicians. Probably reinforces the reason why conservatives don’t want to hear a Voice.
https://apple.news/AANE4EWZvTd-qRCEHmYTd2g
Seeds. Hi. Thanks for this article, I’ve read a lot about her, remarkable, hard working human being. I, like her, have followed and witnessed the plight of our Indigenous people, two steps forward and always one step backwards ( the John Howard method) It’s truly time for us as a nation to change our ways. After all, they are just people like everyone of us, including migrants etc.. A yes to the referendum for a Voice is surely the only way we can be proud to call ourselves Australian.AW
adam12 wrote:Waveman
"The source of the interview is irrelevant.
And neither you or anyone else can be certain about future interpretation of the constitution.https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/brown-study-263"
The source is very relevant, particularly when it's a cherry pick. Why didn't they publish the entire interview?
Speaking of sources, you can just keep reading the Spectator and listening to Rowan Dean and we will agree to disagree, and let the High Court interpret the Constitution.
Reply to me if you want but I'm out of this argument too, got better things to do than debate ill-informed racists and idiots on a surf website. It's like herding cats. Pointless.
And there you have it. Daring to question the idea of enshrining racial prejudice in the constitution gets you labelled, you guessed it, a racist.
False accusations of racism don’t help anyone.
Enshrining racial prejudice in the Constitution?
It's already there.
s 51(xxvi) gives the Federal Parliament power to make laws for "The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws".
Edmund Barton, who would become Australia's first Prime Minister no less, said ‘Questions which relate to the whole body of the people, to the purity of race, to the preservation of the racial character of the white population, are Commonwealth questions and should be so exclusively’.
Also, the race clause when it came into force specifically excluded the ‘people of the Aboriginal race’.
That exemption was removed by the 1967 constitutional referendum which also repealed section 127, which provided that ‘aboriginal natives’ should not be counted in calculating the number of people of the Commonwealth or the states.
That particular measure was designed to ensure that South Australia (which then included the Northern Territory) and Western Australia did not have their numbers in the House of Representatives greatly boosted by the large number of Aboriginal people within their borders.
So.
Considering what's in there, people who claim it's a bad idea to alter the Constitution should probably reconsider.
And saying that this referendum is looking to "enshrine racial prejudice" is ill-informed at best - the referendum is looking to unwind racial prejudice and disadvantage.
LIBERAL Party in disarray: Julian Leeser quits frontbench and says he’ll campaign for a YES vote pic.twitter.com/D0Y29gNtOP
— The Sage (@SarkySage) April 11, 2023
Pauline Hanson is using Julian Leeser’s resignation to demand Peter Dutton put Jacinta Price on the front bench pic.twitter.com/2MQzJpADCr
— Kishor (@kishor_nr) April 11, 2023
It’s all Albo’s fault , can’t he see that he’s personally responsible for dividing the Liberal party .
waveman wrote:adam12 wrote:Waveman
"The source of the interview is irrelevant.
And neither you or anyone else can be certain about future interpretation of the constitution.https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/brown-study-263"
The source is very relevant, particularly when it's a cherry pick. Why didn't they publish the entire interview?
Speaking of sources, you can just keep reading the Spectator and listening to Rowan Dean and we will agree to disagree, and let the High Court interpret the Constitution.
Reply to me if you want but I'm out of this argument too, got better things to do than debate ill-informed racists and idiots on a surf website. It's like herding cats. Pointless.And there you have it. Daring to question the idea of enshrining racial prejudice in the constitution gets you labelled, you guessed it, a racist.
False accusations of racism don’t help anyone.
It's such a weird world we live in.
If you believe ethnicity is irrelevant and all Australians should be one, you are somehow racist.
While if you believe we should be divided by ethnicity and have different representation and voices based on ethnicity your views arew some how not racist and whats worse is you can have the gall to call other racist.
It's so twisted, up side down and back to front.
Supafreak wrote:https://twitter.com/kishor_nr/status/1645616479122100227?s=46&t=5RczxwAf...
Is this possible?
I hope she goes far in politics, amazing women, smart straight shooter and as tough as nails.
Imagine her running for PM one day, even the left would be confused on what to do.
Vote for another old white guy, or an Indigenous women from central OZ?
“ Vote for another old white guy, or an Indigenous women from central OZ?”…. Z… An indigenous woman that has he strings pulled by big gina , a parasite on Australian society .
indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:https://twitter.com/kishor_nr/status/1645616479122100227?s=46&t=5RczxwAf...
Is this possible?
I hope she goes far in politics, amazing women, smart straight shooter and as tough as nails.
Imagine her running for PM one day, even the left would be confused on what to do.
Vote for another old white guy, or an Indigenous women from central OZ?
In reality it’s a vote for Gina’s little Muppet. And the policies of the IPA. You’re funny Indo. A true comedian.
To become PM first you MUST be elected to the House of Representatives with 50%+ of the vote after preferences. Never going to happen.
Like flys to a turd.
So trigger by an indigenous lady who doesn't think or act in the way old white guys think she should.
&t=15s indo-dreaming wrote:Like flys to a turd.
Not very nice calling JP a turd mate. She’s just owned that’s all. Like a Mine or a car or private jet. That’s all.
Flys or flies??
No flies on the murdoch’s as far as JP’s concerned, in fact they’re a beacon of light according to her .
Wow shock horror a conservative group supporting a conservative, who would have thought.
JP has all the details. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/jacinta-price-op... did she actually ever show up to council meetings ?
That was painful to listen to.
She seems very British/pommy private school educated despite saying she wasn't USA influenced.
Great seeing Aussie indigenous folk well spoken and all but she seems more like the sort of women who complains there are not 7 types of knives and forks on the dining table rather than getting to know indigenous folk in places like Darwin, Carnarvon, Geraldton and Alice Springs and helping out the real locals, some without problems but many with major problems.
indo-dreaming wrote:Wow shock horror a conservative group supporting a conservative, who would have thought.
You listened to “Australia if you’re listening” podcast. You talked about it. And they clearly gave listener’s the origins of the IPA and it wasn’t based on conservative values. It was a lobby vehicle for the mining industry to discredit climate science, and protect them from regulation. Any other interpretation of the IPA is complete bullshit. The same miners that regularly blow up cultural heritage sights.
They only care about this strong black woman as long as she’s towing the line which she does.
That 11 minutes above was word soup and she said nothing. Meaning at the end of 11 minutes even she didn’t know what she was saying.
IMHO…..ha ha!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/14/voting-yes-to-the-.... Voting yes to the voice is a liberal act to empower Indigenous Australians to take responsibility for their lives
Bridget Archer and Fiona Martin ………Spuds not going to be happy………. It was dishonest to claim that the national apology to the stolen generations would lead to a wave of litigation, and today it is deeply cynical to claim the voice will lead to an inundation of litigation against defence contracts, interdepartmental committee decisions and technology contracts……..conservatives supporting conservatives…..who would have thought ?
Supafreak wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/14/voting-yes-to-the-.... Voting yes to the voice is a liberal act to empower Indigenous Australians to take responsibility for their lives
Bridget Archer and Fiona Martin ………Spuds not going to be happy………. It was dishonest to claim that the national apology to the stolen generations would lead to a wave of litigation, and today it is deeply cynical to claim the voice will lead to an inundation of litigation against defence contracts, interdepartmental committee decisions and technology contracts……..conservatives supporting conservatives…..who would have thought ?
Just more mumbo jumbo nonsense, most conservatives aren't against an indigenous advisory body, (including me) we are against something being enshrined in the constitution that is not only unproven but similar ideas have completely failed, it makes zero sense to enshrine something bound to fail and something that divides Australians on racial lines.
There is nothing more racist than giving one group more representation or power in the constitution .
Nobody really knows what the consequences will be legally (experts seem to disagree), but that aside, the outcomes for indigenous people you can 100% guarantee wont change either, putting something in the constitution doesn't magically make things work, it just means your stuck with something that doesn't work.
If it stopped the whole never ending all indigenous issues are because of non indigenous people*
and the voice meant self responsibility was taken for their own community issues, then that would be amazing.
But no way that will ever happen, if the voices passes, which i expect will because people are being kinda shamed into voting Yes, and the wording is designed to get a yes vote.
Twenty years from now, things will not have changed and most likely even be worse, and the whole narrative will just be the same and their will be all kinds of excuses why the voice hasn't worked as intended.
*not using the word "white people", because Australia is a multicultural country we aren't all white.
More mumbo jumbo from info
Indo said "Twenty years from now, things will not have changed and most likely even be worse, and the whole narrative will just be the same and their will be all kinds of excuses why the voice hasn't worked as intended."
Firstly, no one likes a pedant, however unless you can coherently articulate you undermine the gravitas of any point you seek to make. So FYI:
"Their, there, and they're are all pronounced the same way. Their is the possessive pronoun, as in "their car is red"; there is used as an adjective, "he is always there for me," a noun, "get away from there," and, chiefly, an adverb, "stop right there"; they're is a contraction of "they are," as in "they're getting married." from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Aside from that, seeing as you have got your crystal ball out, can you tell me which horse will win the Melbourne Cup this year and which team is going to win the A.F.L. flag, I'd like to get some bets on.
As for your twenty year vision into the future, who knows, a lot can happen in twenty years. One thing is assured, the baby boom generation that has provided an electoral base for the LNP for the past twenty years will all be dead and gone. Current polling suggests the following generations are far more progressive in their outlook, they are not becoming more conservative as they grow older, in fact the opposite. Climate change, inequality and issues like proper representation for Indigenous Australians are far more important to them than conserving accumulated wealth. They are the first generations that will not be better off than their parents or grandparents and that is having a profound impact on how they vote and their political outlook in general. Unless the right of politics can embrace that change, something they currently seem incapable of, they risk becoming fringe players in our political landscape.
Another factor which I believe will have a profound impact will be the death of Rupert Murdoch and the succession battle among his children for control of his estate. His influence on our political narrative, (and you could probably include Gina Rinehart in this as well), has been a defining factor in many of our elections and policy positioning on the right side of politics for many years. Whilst that still seems to be the case, and the chosen son Lachlan is apparently more right wing than his father, and although the Murdochs seem to live forever (his mother went well into her hundreds), Prudence, Elizabeth and James look poised to wrestle control on the death of Rupert and if they do, could steer the ship toward something more worthy of liberal democracy, That will have a huge impact on how politics is done in Australia.
Twenty years from now we may have been through another war in the Pacific, we may have lost and all be speaking Mandarin. Twenty years from now the currently unfettered progress of artificial intelligence may have killed every living organism on the planet to be consumed in the production of more AI. Twenty years from now sixty plus degree heat domes may settle across the continents each summer and kill everything that doesn't live air conditioned. There is a lot you could predict, but if you just want to consider the Voice and it's impact on changing the lives of our Indigenous people twenty years from now, one thing will have changed, they will have a right to be heard that cannot be taken away. Something they have never had, in a place they have lived for thousands of years.
Jacinta Price got the dog whistle out on Insiders. Pity Dutton wasn't so concerned when he was in government for the welfare of indigenous kids....
What a horrendous opportunistic individual he is ...
so you're a white guy accusing an indigenous woman of a "dog-whistle.." only looked here because I saw "dog-whistle" appear in the "wax-off" headlines, and one of my immutable rules is anyone who uses the term "dog-whistle" is always a bona-fide, rolled-gold , card-carrying Cnut. you maxed it out Andy
Info wouldn’t recognise a conservative (in the true / traditional political use of the word) if it bit him on his lily-white arse.
G ……. C………ALP ……MLs…………………LNP —>>>
G = greens
C = traditional centre of AU politics
ALP = current centre right position
MLs = Moderate “liberals”
LNP = where @info’s LNP sit
and to GS I have 2 words, "John Howard". my assumption has always been you were a failed labor candidate when JH won one of his 3 (count them, 3!). elections, accounting for your pathological hatred. am I close?
loungelizard wrote:so you're a white guy accusing an indigenous woman of a "dog-whistle.." only looked here because I saw "dog-whistle" appear in the "wax-off" headlines, and one of my immutable rules is anyone who uses the term "dog-whistle" is always a bona-fide, rolled-gold , card-carrying Cnut. you maxed it out Andy
Look up what dog whistle means mate! Doesn't really matter what race is involved, was referring to what was being said.
Secondly have a look in the mirror, you are the one who is being abusive to a commentator on this forum. Look through any of my posts and you will see I disagree, but have never got personal.
Anyway carry on ...
loungelizard wrote:and to GS I have 2 words, "John Howard". my assumption has always been you were a failed labor candidate when JH won one of his 3 (count them, 3!). elections, accounting for your pathological hatred. am I close?
The two words I have in mind when I think of Howard alternate between: unflushable turd or cunning stunt or war criminal or children overboard or sewer rat or dog whistler
I saw Senator Price on TV this morning and she presents well. Much better than many in articulating her ideas.
However, when repeatedly pressed for examples of child sexual abuse that she and Dutton based their Alice Springs press conference on she had nothing but vague stories of children already in foster care and therefore known to the authorities being returned to family members.
So, the "urgency" that Dutton was describing in his presser calling for AFP police intervention and a Royal Commission doesn't exist BUT what does exist is perhaps legitimate questions of the policies and procedures of the NT's welfare agency and in particular the policy of returning children already in the system to family members. Interestingly, Price herself this morning identified the sensitivity of this given the stolen generations, Again, based on Price's own words today this isn't a widespread issue as Dutton has presented.
So based on what Price was saying this morning Dutton and her want a review of the NT's policy of having family members care for children already in the system but that is NOT what Dutton was saying nor Price the other day and that is why is reasonable to seriously question his motives. Here boy, whistle, whistle ......
loungelizard wrote:and to GS I have 2 words, "John Howard". my assumption has always been you were a failed labor candidate when JH won one of his 3 (count them, 3!). elections, accounting for your pathological hatred. am I close?
Ha ha i never thought of that, does make sense though.
GuySmiley wrote:I saw Senator Price on TV this morning and she presents well. Much better than many in articulating her ideas.
However, when repeatedly pressed for examples of child sexual abuse that she and Dutton based their Alice Springs press conference on she had nothing but vague stories of children already in foster care and therefore known to the authorities being returned to family members.
So, the "urgency" that Dutton was describing in his presser calling for AFP police intervention and a Royal Commission doesn't exist BUT what does exist is perhaps legitimate questions of the policies and procedures of the NT's welfare agency and in particular the policy of returning children already in the system to family members. Interestingly, Price herself this morning identified the sensitivity of this given the stolen generations, Again, based on Price's own words today this isn't a widespread issue as Dutton has presented.
So based on what Price was saying this morning Dutton and her want a review of the NT's policy of having family members care for children already in the system but that is NOT what Dutton was saying nor Price the other day and that is why is reasonable to seriously question his motives. Here boy, whistle, whistle ......
Its pretty hard to deny these things happen in Indigenous communities at a very high rate compared to general Australian population, it's well known and documented.
Not exactly something you can come out and name victims and perpetrators though, and not fair to do unless already in the media.
Anyway stats are pretty clear.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/australias-children/conte...
Its an all dammed if you do dammed if you dont area.
“Asked not to be named.” Oh that’s nice. https://t.co/JkKHpFDwXE
— Greg Jericho (@GrogsGamut) April 16, 2023
@adam12
You always seem to dis my grammar, to me it just says more about you than anything, i dont care if your a tradie, you clearly still have that, im better more educated than you elitist attitude.
Anyway if you are going to diss me, at least hit the enter key so we can read your shite.
Anyway 20 years from now you will most likely be dead or in an old peoples home, but if your head is still there, i do look forward to you logging in, so i can say i told you so.
If you think a new advisory body is going to change anything, you are kidding yourself, there is already countless advisory bodies and indigenous bodies all looking for a $$$ some have already done very well, not exactly sure where Marcia Langton got her 5 to 7 million worth but you can bet a lot came from the indigenous industry gravy train that is worth billions.
Supafreak wrote:https://twitter.com/grogsgamut/status/1647397031114313728?s=46&t=5RczxwA...
All this talk of LNP out in wilderness is just garbage.
100% they are in a bad place, and realistically it could be for a while until they get back into power, you really have to drop the ball for voters to swap governments after one term, so realistically two terms plus
Hence for me its not so important right now, Dutton deserves his shot, but its the next opposition leader that is more important. (hopefully a strong women)
For perspective on all this, you cant be up all the time, its like football even the best teams bottom out LNP have dominated federal politics for the last 70 years, they have literally been in power for 50 of those 70 years our lifetime.
And just looking back 26 years LNP have been in power 19 of the last 26 years.
Including just finishing an almost nine year run,
For real perspective, in the whole history of Australian politics Labor have only exceeded nine years one time during Hawk/Keating and then it ended in a deep dark recession.
Yeah Dutton is unelectable but so were many of Labor's now forgotten opposition leaders
Look it sucks anytime Labor are in, but then i think about how Labor voters felty during Howards almost 12 year reign, or even worse imagine when Menzies was in for 16 years straight, which was part of a coalition 23 year reign.
Now imagine that 23 years of the same government.
People would have been saying Labor will never be re-elected and are done, if Labor can be so pathetic for so long im sure LNP can get through a rough patch.
Anyway a lot can change in politics in a very very short time, few years from now things could be very very different.
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