The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
basesix wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:would have liked to hear more from Peter and less from random activist types.
why?
Because Peter Sutton is one of the most highly respected and knowledgeable Australian anthropologist and comes from a neutral non political view point, what he says is based on a throughly educated knowledge and understanding which is a good thing for a documentary
While some of the activist types views are just personal opinions based on emotion and wishful thinking, which doesn't add much to a documentary.
mm, I take your point, but anthropology is going through a heck of a fundamental shake up atm. Love finding out newer things, and questioning things we have taken as given, sometimes based on 300 year-old (and older) Euro assumptions about 'us'.
Can't recommend 'the Dawn of Everything' enough. Such a well-writen thing. Very calm and balanced, every page to be admired. My fave intro into 'us' guy, Jared Diamond, is positively OG now. Would love David Wengrow to come and chat to some of our Aussie FNPs.
basesix wrote:I just wanna mung on some of that sweet Aussie bread, unleavened or not!
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/10/australian-resear...
haha! I was talking about that bread today at work!!
got some o' that black duck sweetness coming my way via robwilliams SR : D
(order some, and we'll start a baking thread ; )
PM Albo is campaigning for a [Treaty]
PM Abbott claims Albo's T shirt has shocked Shock Jock's
Where are the Fashion Police when ya need them...Outrage!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12329759/The-explosive-three-wo...
truebluebasher wrote:PM Albo is campaigning for a [Treaty]
PM Abbott claims Albo's T shirt has shocked Shock Jock's
Where are the Fashion Police when ya need them...Outrage!https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12329759/The-explosive-three-wo...
Yes vote polls are steadily sliding backwards, people are starting to pick up in all the mix messaging and ironically lack of truth telling
They should have been more prepared before having the referendum.
1. Already know all the details, important things like how it will be decided who sits on the voice.
2. Just tell us the truth about things like that it is a pathway to treaty and voice will be able to have a say on things like Australia day.
3. Not demonise those that oppose the voice and start calling them silly names.
4. Played fair and given voters a choice to vote on the voice and constitutional recognition separately.
5. If smart would have said we will have the referendum, but currently there is more important issues like inflation and cost of living pressures.
A few weeks back tbb said he'd volunteer to neutrally help stop the rot.
Mostly coz the whole deal is getting everyone down...choose any side, it's all glib!
tbb set out to destroy all monsters...
[ If ya don't know then 'Vote No' or some shit! ]
Man! That is Gold Dust...
How can [Yes] Flip that expert Dumbarse Shit...Huh!
Be honest! They're gonna need somethin' special & outta respect for expert dumbarse shit...
tbb had to dig much deeper...way down deep inside from where this shit started!
Well, ya need to dig deeper to be true to oneself to first own then live with your decision.
Ya simply ask the folk to Question if this shit they don't know will burden them for life...OMG is that deep!
Clever Crew : "But wait up tbb...ya can't back flip with a guilt trip or you'll just land in more shit...All Say Aye!"
Ok then!
Firstly...[Yes] must be honest & own their lost ground then dust yourselves down & pick yourselves up!
Never likely to happen...but it needs doin' to win over the people.
None will expect this level of brutal VIP self humiliation...now ya got ALL the doubter's attention!
Now with hand on heart you lead by example & take the people with you this time.
Focus on what brings Oz together...the things we love, let the sound of Australia be your guide!
Reckon if the [yes] Mob speak openly from the heart they'll win the day by keeping it true!
However! You'll notice tbb crafted the lyric to ring true for choice [Yes/No]...that's being honest!
tbb is not voting for obvious reason & keeps it neutral but wishes to uplift the mood for both camps...
Again...It's often only those outside looking in...can see the weakest link to soften the blow!
Now! Once knowing such...then we can start the healing...this can & should be done to embrace Referendum.
Aussies seem to forget that this is a respectful process, resulting in a decision that all must live with!
Majestic Oz is large enough to soak up the negativity & recycle a new beginning.
This is an effortless faultless way for all to move forward come what may...
Peace of Mind comes from giving Voice to our Island home!
{Voice for Reason}
A voice drowned out is the Sound of our Sea.
A voice in the Wilderness is the call of the Wild set Free
Your inner Voice will argue against you.
Heart Strings resound ever true
Voice your Support for Reason
Sing your Voice with the Season
Now as one, raise your Voice
Together Australia! Rejoice!
on ya tbb. In Oz, if someone you know looks direct at you and genuinely asks for something, do you find a reason to say yes, or a reason to say no? (If you don't know, say yes):
in UK 'well I don't have that why should you?';
in USA 'what do you reeeeally want?';
in NZ 'well it's never been that way!';
in Canada 'what's this aboot, ay?';
in Aus? 'Sure mate, no worries' (I would like to think).
Great post TBB and great follow up Basesix.
yeh SR, was quite moved by tbb's balanced message of harmony..
(apologies for the stereotyping in my post. I hate it when people homogenise the people of other nations. Germans do that.)
yep, I agree gromfull:
About the same percentage of Aboriginal people are Yes for the Voice, as Australians that voted Yes in the 1967 referendum. Massive, MASSIVE majority. And the less-than-10% of FNPs that don't want Yes are getting a LOT of sponsored oxygen!
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parlia...
basesix wrote:yep, I agree gromfull:
About the same percentage of Aboriginal people are Yes for the Voice, as Australians that voted Yes in the 1967 referendum. Massive, MASSIVE majority. And the less-than-10% of FNPs that don't want Yes are getting a LOT of sponsored oxygen!
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parlia...
Obviously you didn't read the linked article he posted
They are very small poll numbers and who knows what communities/regions were targeted in the poll?
Plus we dont even know when they were taken, polls on support for the voice in the wider community have dropped off substantially since this time last year, id expect there would be some drop in support even among Indigenous people that know what the voice is about, maybe not so much as a result from the No campaign as such but possibly learning or hearing about the Sovereignty aspect.
That said i think realistically any one group of people is always going to have majority support for something that gives them more of a say, its kind of natural.
The good thing is we live in a democracy where we all get a say, so whats more important is what all Australians think.
I just hope people get all the information needed before they vote and not believe whatever Albo or Linda Burney says and see how much mixed messaging and changing narratives there is among them.
yeh, I did read it. tbb inspired me to be positive : )
Any idea how I can better get rid of polygala on my bush block Indo? For nearly a decade the kids and I have been doing our best, but god it's a relentless bugger..
basesix wrote:Any idea how I can better get rid of polygala on my bush block Indo? For nearly a decade the kids and I have been doing our best, but god it's a relentless bugger..
Ha ha no im not familiar with polygonal control/eradication, but i did do some noxious weed control with landcare in Vic long ago mostly on Gorse and up in QLD on some other plants like Camphor laurel. (cut and poison)
If a large block or lots of weeds and using a herbicide put a dye in it so you can see what ones you have hit and so you dont miss any, and always spray before they seed, and ideally when actively growing.
If just pulling them out make sure you do it before they seed, and if have already seeded be real careful and bag them so dont drop seeds.
Some plants seeds can sit dormant for very long periods too like years, so might take a long time to get on top of
hey, the dye idea is a really good one - cheers!
Polygala IS one of those dormant seeds ones, gonna be a bit forever I think : /
If only I could stop foxes spreading mange to the wombats too.. I dose them with ivermectin from the end of a long pole, but by the time they are stealthily treatable, they are often too far gone..
Yeah there like special dyes like this
https://www.bunnings.com.au/yates-500ml-liquid-easy-see-spray-dye_p29615...
It was long ago when i did it but i remember the dye made it kind of strangely satisfying.
There is more than one ex LNP minister who believe the voice is a step in the right direction. Have they got different “ details “ to spud and his current gang ? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/26/julie-bishop-back... https://nit.com.au/07-04-2023/5535/fred-chaney-slames-liberals-stance-on...
Wilhelm Scream wrote:"While the Albanese government sat waiting last April for Peter Dutton to come forward with Peter’s views on the Voice, Peter hunkered down with his party advisors and thought brokers so they could tell Peter what Peter thought of the Voice. Peter’s mates in his frequently visited USA taught him that lesson last July when he visited his Republican friends in their Washington think-tanks so the Americans could show him how to divide Australia and sell pre-packaged grievance wars to the masses.
Just so we’re all clear – the Liberal Party, and their fake Akubra-wearing mates the Nationals, are opposing The Voice as a way to undermine their political opponents and build their voter base back up. That’s it. That’s all they’ve got. The fact that numerous legal experts and Indigenous people themselves say the Voice is something that’s very much needed to achieve equality isn’t something Peter wants or needs to hear. He feeds on the blood of conflict and negativity, he always has.
The substance and aims of The Voice have little to do with Peter Dutton and co’s decision to oppose it. Like all populists, he hates the population. He just needs to see the blood."
https://theshot.net.au/general-news/dudded-peter-dutton-in-no-mans-land/
Let's call Dutton etc out for what they are, opportunistic grubs ...
And I'm not just referring to the Voice.
Supafreak wrote:There is more than one ex LNP minister who believe the voice is a step in the right direction. Have they got different “ details “ to spud and his current gang ? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/26/julie-bishop-back... https://nit.com.au/07-04-2023/5535/fred-chaney-slames-liberals-stance-on...
Details???...Sorry those havent been decided yet, they come after, just like when you build a house, build the house first then get plans drawn up.
Yep and there is also a few X labor leaders openly opposed to the voice just off the top of my head Warren Mundine, Gary Johns, Mark Latham and im sure many more behind closed doors dont support the voice.
However that said it should be noted there is a very very very different culture between LNP and Labor, LNP is a broad church to have a different view as an individual isn't necessarily always seen as a bad thing, because the right of the individual to have a different view and not agree on everything is generally valued and respected. (its like a democracy within the party and helps shape the direction of the party)
While Labor have more of a you must be a brick that fits into the brick wall and think like this, rather than be an individual. (no further comment on comparisons to political movements)
You can see this in the culture of crossing the floor when comparing Labor to the Coalition, its only happened about 30 times in Labor's history and expect seen most of those booted from the party while its happened hundreds of times for the Coalition
Post politics obviously people are a little braver as dont have to tow party lines on fear of losing their job (Labor) but the culture still extends into post political life, X Labor politicians not towing party lines would still be seen in a negative light or even as traitors, hence you only get those that have turned their back on Labor expressing real views publicly.
While X LNP politician's would feel even more free to express their views.
So no surprise at all.
These cartoons hit the nail on the head so hard
indo-dreaming wrote:These cartoons hit the nail on the head so hard
Geez could you get more puerile??
certainly does!
clutching at straws, attacking personalities, wonder how long it took them to find a NO voting animator? Pauline? c'mon... I laughed out loud at their presenting Thomas Mayo as an angry savage, you couldn't find a more mild-tempered, gentle and generous person than in Thomas. Brought to you by overpriced Bundy?
indo-dreaming wrote:Yep and there is also a few X labor leaders openly opposed to the voice just off the top of my head Warren Mundine, Gary Johns, Mark Latham and im sure many more behind closed doors dont support the voice.
haha, this NO after-party is getting better and better, you could bum a fag off Gary, watch Mark get angry at the curtains and chat with Wazza about why aboriginals have to behave sooo aboriginally.
I bet Elmer Albo can't wait for the voice to be over so he can get back to what he does best. Jetting around the World getting selfies with the rich and famous. A lot of people I know are voting NO just to stick it up the arrogant little prick. People don't like signing blank cheques or voting for something that hasn't even been designed yet. Most out of touch Labor PM in history.
Indo, i'd rather be a brick in a brick house than a pillar of a church, if you know what i mean.
andy-mac wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:These cartoons hit the nail on the head so hard
Geez could you get more puerile??
Odious
https://theconversation.com/what-are-advance-and-fair-australia-and-why-... What are ‘Advance’ and ‘Fair Australia’, and why are they spearheading the ‘no’ campaign on the Voice?
Indo wrote “ Details???...Sorry those havent been decided yet, they come after, just like when you build a house, build the house first then get plans drawn up. “ @indo, are you still struggling with the process ?
"...A lot of people I know are voting NO just to stick it up the arrogant little prick. People don't like signing blank cheques or voting for something that hasn't even been designed yet. Most out of touch Labor PM in history."
yep
it would be most interesting to know how many people vote no exclusively because of albo's arrogance, ignorance, and plain fucking rude dismissiveness...
such a shame
could've... should've... been a celebrated uniting moment in australia's history...
but nah, modern politics only does toxic
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/cockiness-stalled-the-yes-cam...
I agree that the campaign has gone on far to long but if the yes vote doesn’t get up is it really all Albos fault ? If people vote just to defeat Albo for whatever reasons, then that says more about the people voting than it does about Albo . I’m certainly not Albo’s biggest fan and don’t agree with everything Labor has done so far . I'm voting Yes because FNP deserve an opportunity at having input to decisions that directly affect them .
dunno about gone on far too long...
it is more the framing of the debate from labor that has gone on far too long
for 12 months now they have desperately tried not talk about anything that matters and push it through on a 'vibe'
so dumb, their advisors are so dumb...
they could've shut down nearly all the pathetic talking points of dutton and co. overnight if they played it differently
the 'debate' has been pathetic, so stifled and constructed by the unseen cynical megastructure that is contempory politics, it is just sad
https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2023/02/27/1385518/voice-to-pa.... Voice to Parliament: Debunking 10 myths and misconceptions
This “no” voice debate reminds me of what some journalist said about the Adam Goodes controversy ie Australians embrace their minorities right up to the moment they try to stick their heads above the pack.
Polls: are they still taken by (landline) phone? Ie old chompers getting their say (getting it off their chests) over young voters with mobiles? Could there also be a meaningful discrepancy between polling results and people’s voting intentions per state especially when considering results from rural (good ole boys country) and urban areas (latte woke commie fake leftists)??
Supafreak wrote:https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2023/02/27/1385518/voice-to-pa.... Voice to Parliament: Debunking 10 myths and misconceptions
Myth 1
It will amount to a third chamber of Parliament and therefore impact parliamentary sovereignty, a fundamental element of our constitutional system of government.
What is proposed is a Voice to Parliament, not a Voice in Parliament. It will have no role in passing legislation; that will continue to be left to our elected representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate, as currently prescribed by the Constitution.
The proposed Constitutional amendment states that the Voice “may make representations” to Parliament. It will be up to Parliament to decide what it does with those representations. Indeed, the proposed Voice to Parliament is a very conservative change to our Constitution.
This is technically correct but people are not dumb, and they understand that any government will be under significant pressure to implement policy proposals coming from the Voice. And saying no to things will be subjected to incredible levels of scrutiny and pain. I'm not necessarily against Voice but ignoring this fact in the ongoing discussion is ludicrous.
"...This is technically correct but people are not dumb, and they understand that any government will be under significant pressure to implement policy proposals coming from the Voice. And saying no to things will be subjected to incredible levels of scrutiny and pain. I'm not necessarily against Voice but ignoring this fact in the ongoing discussion is ludicrous."
exactly
that, and the sheer amount of other stuff they expect people to not think about generally is ludicrous
Good point flollo & sypkan, I too hope the government of the day will be under significant pressure (and scrutiny) while considering aboriginal-affairs policy suggestions made to parliament by the aboriginal voice to parliament.
Supafreak wrote:Indo wrote “ Details???...Sorry those havent been decided yet, they come after, just like when you build a house, build the house first then get plans drawn up. “ @indo, are you still struggling with the process ?
100% im still struggling with the process as i expect half of Australia is because its back to front in every regard.
If your going to propose something we want the detail figured out before hand not after, they have had years and years to figure details out, just simple but important basic details like how it will be decided who sits on the voice.
Then we also want a straight story, stick to your story and ensure all your side have the same view/story not a whole heap of contradiction messaging, or even blatant changes in what individuals say.
And when claims are made, we want evidence to support claims, generally that means showing us first that something works.
I really hope this fails, but i also really hope when it does fail, that the voice still gets passed as legislation so all of Australia can see that it achieves nothing and possible create more issues.
I sure dont want to have to listened to ongoing bullshit that things would be different, if the voice got up and this or that issue is only an issue because there is no voice.
flollo wrote:Supafreak wrote:https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2023/02/27/1385518/voice-to-pa.... Voice to Parliament: Debunking 10 myths and misconceptions
Myth 1
It will amount to a third chamber of Parliament and therefore impact parliamentary sovereignty, a fundamental element of our constitutional system of government.What is proposed is a Voice to Parliament, not a Voice in Parliament. It will have no role in passing legislation; that will continue to be left to our elected representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate, as currently prescribed by the Constitution.
The proposed Constitutional amendment states that the Voice “may make representations” to Parliament. It will be up to Parliament to decide what it does with those representations. Indeed, the proposed Voice to Parliament is a very conservative change to our Constitution.
This is technically correct but people are not dumb, and they understand that any government will be under significant pressure to implement policy proposals coming from the Voice. And saying no to things will be subjected to incredible levels of scrutiny and pain. I'm not necessarily against Voice but ignoring this fact in the ongoing discussion is ludicrous.
Glad someone noted this.
Seriously anyone with some common sense can see that this isn't a true neutral fact check its just propaganda.
The No camp should do a fact check on the so called fact check.
2= Who knows but experts dont seem to agree.
3= There is zero evidence to suggest it will, if it was legislated as policy first then we could test it, its also based on the complete lie that indigenous communities and bodies already dont have a say, when they do and are consulted at all levels from state to federal, FFS we even have an indigenous minister who's job is to communicate with bodies and organisations and communities. (and of course things like coalition of peaks)
4= Is a contradiction, the whole point is for an extra right to a further say.
5= They have had years to figure out basic detail, saying shit like "Too much detail will lead to confusion, and many people will likely not want to read a lengthy document." is just brain dead bullshit, even if it goes over our heads or dont read it, we want experts to look over things.
Seriously its just insulting and taking us for mugs to say dont worry about the detail we will figure that out latter.
"Demanding to see draft legislation ahead of the referendum suggests a lack of trust in Parliament,"
Really?....You think people trust governments and parliament?
6= There is zero reason why it cant be implemented as policy first to to prove its worth, only reason it would ever be abolished is because it doesnt work or causes issues, and even then it needs to voted on to be abolished.
7= Its already divided the nation, so completely busted.
8= Nobody really knows because we cant talk to all indigenous people polls based on a few hundred people some time ago doesn't mean a lot, we all know polls numbers change over time.
9. Well thats what we should be changing in the constitution then, not adding more inequality.
10. History is generally correct hence why we learn from it and polls numbers suggest its unlikely to get up.
I know any article written won’t change your mind indo , these two may answer some of your questions though. https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/lets-talk-about-the-voice-to-parliam.... https://theconversation.com/10-questions-about-the-voice-to-parliament-a...
Indo wrote “ If your going to propose something we want the detail figured out before hand not after, they have had years and years to figure details out, just simple but important basic details like how it will be decided who sits on the voice.” 
https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles?fbclid=IwAR0pyfkRbYDwi...
indo-dreaming wrote:flollo wrote:Supafreak wrote:https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2023/02/27/1385518/voice-to-pa.... Voice to Parliament: Debunking 10 myths and misconceptions
Myth 1
It will amount to a third chamber of Parliament and therefore impact parliamentary sovereignty, a fundamental element of our constitutional system of government.What is proposed is a Voice to Parliament, not a Voice in Parliament. It will have no role in passing legislation; that will continue to be left to our elected representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate, as currently prescribed by the Constitution.
The proposed Constitutional amendment states that the Voice “may make representations” to Parliament. It will be up to Parliament to decide what it does with those representations. Indeed, the proposed Voice to Parliament is a very conservative change to our Constitution.
This is technically correct but people are not dumb, and they understand that any government will be under significant pressure to implement policy proposals coming from the Voice. And saying no to things will be subjected to incredible levels of scrutiny and pain. I'm not necessarily against Voice but ignoring this fact in the ongoing discussion is ludicrous.
Glad someone noted this.
Seriously anyone with some common sense can see that this isn't a true neutral fact check its just propaganda.
The No camp should do a fact check on the so called fact check.
2= Who knows but experts dont seem to agree.
3= There is zero evidence to suggest it will, if it was legislated as policy first then we could test it, its also based on the complete lie that indigenous communities and bodies already dont have a say, when they do and are consulted at all levels from state to federal, FFS we even have an indigenous minister who's job is to communicate with bodies and organisations and communities. (and of course things like coalition of peaks)
4= Is a contradiction, the whole point is for an extra right to a further say.
5= They have had years to figure out basic detail, saying shit like "Too much detail will lead to confusion, and many people will likely not want to read a lengthy document." is just brain dead bullshit, even if it goes over our heads or dont read it, we want experts to look over things.
Seriously its just insulting and taking us for mugs to say dont worry about the detail we will figure that out latter.
"Demanding to see draft legislation ahead of the referendum suggests a lack of trust in Parliament,"
Really?....You think people trust governments and parliament?
6= There is zero reason why it cant be implemented as policy first to to prove its worth, only reason it would ever be abolished is because it doesnt work or causes issues, and even then it needs to voted on to be abolished.
7= Its already divided the nation, so completely busted.
8= Nobody really knows because we cant talk to all indigenous people polls based on a few hundred people some time ago doesn't mean a lot, we all know polls numbers change over time.
9. Well thats what we should be changing in the constitution then, not adding more inequality.
10. History is generally correct hence why we learn from it and polls numbers suggest its unlikely to get up.
Good summary of Sky after dark talking points.
@ indo , do you honestly believe the article from monash university was nothing more than a propaganda piece for the voice ? And that your PH comic is based on fact ?
100% its just bias propaganda as ive pointed out with breaking down each point.
The PH comic is also bias propaganda but its not trying to be serious it's a cartoon on Youtube taking the piss but is funny because its based on real life.
And sorry but that's not detail, thats super vague it doesn't explain anything, like will there be elections where only indigenous people* can vote? (*determined by who?)
That's the only way you can democratically determine who is on the voice by an election process.
Which with that bring all kinds of issues, the voice is suppose to be independent from government so who runs elections and ensures they are run properly and free from corruption etc?
Not to mention there is only 24 spots said to be on the voice while there is about 250 different mobs, so even the maths doesnt add up.
They are light on detail because if they provide detail the No campaign will be able to further point out how poorly its constructed and all the faults and it will have even less chance of getting up.
Im just wondering what people like Indo and the no campaign are so afraid to lose by simply voting yes.
If it is not affecting you, but it's a chance for helping others, where there currently is a void, why not just vote yes and get on with your life?
I'm baffled by the amount of energy Indo and the no goers are putting into this.
So it’s a no from you then indo . Is that because you don’t know ?
Indo said “ Not to mention there is only 24 spots said to be on the voice while there is about 250 different mobs, so even the maths doesnt add up.” @ indo its clear that you haven’t bothered to read any of the links I put up . That doesn’t surprise me , spuds the same . Moans about no details but won’t read the information when it’s presented. Enjoy your evening indo.
southernraw wrote:If it is not affecting you, but it's a chance for helping others, where there currently is a void, why not just vote yes and get on with your life?
many different trees came to this land of eucalypts, some are oaks, some conifers, and some are phoenix palms.
Geez those Phoenix Palms sound like absolute c#*ts Basesix.
Love the smell of Eucalypts.
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