The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
it is a bit of a ridiculous argument to say... why not if it is not affecting you?
when the whole argument is we need to make this change to the constitution, because it will be significant...
and I'd say, people may come at the issue from different viewpoints... but hardly anyone, that's hardly anyone at all... 0.001% hardly... want the aboriginal peoples' position not to improve
the argument from the yes crew is basically;
we need to change the constitution, the constitution is a big important thing, but don't worry, nothing much will change...
this will not divide people in the constitution, we will just define one group seperate from the other group in the constitution, but it is not divisive...
aboriginal people will not be getting any special rights, the constitution will just give them an extra voice to parliment, no special rights at all...
it is not making the constitution racist, because the constitution is already racist...
that's about the crux of it
illogical and baseline at best
this is the 'debate' we're expected to just suck up
insulting at best...
southernraw wrote: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.
For a lot of the No vote, it's not about the indigenous Voice, but something to divide the country and attack the Labor party or anything else that sniffs of being progressive. Conservatives want fear and distrust in community as it's helps their agenda and gets them votes. Taking a leaf out of the USA republican playbook to fire up the base. Always easier to tear something down than build something worthwhile.
The Voice if it gets up will not be noticeable for vast majority of Australians, but has good chance to improve the lives of indigenous Australians. If it doesn't the racist regressive wins, and I am not suggesting all people that vote No are racist, but all racists will vote No.
Dutton n crew wanting details, pft. Dutton was part of the most corrupt non transparent govt in our history. Let's get some details on his time as Home Affairs minister and corrupt payments ey.
southernraw wrote: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.
For a decade or more here on SN @info has had a rock solid never give a bee’s dick position on all matters relating to Aboriginal affairs and his other pet highly triggering issue refugee policy.
@info sees it as a badge of honour that he stridently holds his views so rather than ask him to change his position ask yourself why do you like you banging your head against a wall? Think about it.
What he said. X 100.
Don’t forget violent disdain for environmental protestors.
sypkan wrote:it is a bit of a ridiculous argument to say... why not if it is not affecting you?
when the whole argument is we need to make this change to the constitution, because it will be significant...
and I'd say, people may come at the issue from different viewpoints... but hardly anyone, that's hardly anyone at all... 0.001% hardly... want the aboriginal peoples' position not to improve
the argument from the yes crew is basically;
we need to change the constitution, the constitution is a big important thing, but don't worry, nothing much will change...
this will not divide people in the constitution, we will just define one group seperate from the other group in the constitution, but it is not divisive...
aboriginal people will not be getting any special rights, the constitution will just give them an extra voice to parliment, no special rights at all...
it is not making the constitution racist, because the constitution is already racist...
that's about the crux of it
illogical and baseline at best
this is the 'debate' we're expected to just suck up
insulting at best...
I dont think the constitution is racist but if people do somehow then why arent we changing that?
The idea that all this doesn't affect other Australians like Southern raw says is not true, there is kinds of ways it could affect other Australians, especially because the Voice is not the end game, Just look at the issues already happening to land owners in WA from new cultural heritage laws, NZ also has had issue's around similar things
Then of course there is other things activist could use the voice for like trying to get rid of like Australia day.
If you are someone like Southern raw who believes the voice really will benefit the 20% of indigenous people whom are disadvantaged, voting No doesn't take this hope away, as the voice can be implemented in policy and actually be tested anyway.
Even if i think the voice is pretty much useless, its not the actually voice im opposed to its cementing it in the constitution, its just craziness, especially when its basically a blank document,
Its just craziness.
Supafreak wrote:So it’s a no from you then indo . Is that because you don’t know ?
The five main reason's i will vote No.
Other than number one, not necessarily in order.
1. Principle, I believe its not only morally wrong to divide us in the constitution based on race, but i also think it's a big backwards step and undoes much progress made in the last 50 years.
2. What it leads to: more divisive stuff like treaty and paying the rent type stuff, the stuff we are seeing in WA from these new laws and the stuff many Kiwis complain about.
3. Who's involved basically activist from the left, trust them even less than most politician's especially when power and money is involved. (plus you can bet there will be no political diversity on the voice, there was none in its creation) like almost everything its about power and money.
4. Political: Albo wants this as his legacy, so if it doesn't get up it will be great to watch him fail, i also want to see Jacinta & Warren get a win (Dont care about Dutton)
5. Republic: If it fails to get up its ensures Albo doesn't try to have another referendum on becoming a republic, which we dont need.
Again like i said while i think the voice itself would achieve nothing, i still think its important to put it in policy so people know and can see for themselves, and on that 1% chance i and others are wrong, well great you have a policy that works, hence has no reason to be scrapped.
Right you are GS. Thanks for the timely reminder....
Great reply @andymac. Pretty much covers what i think also.
Cheers.
soggydog wrote:What he said. X 100.
Don’t forget violent disdain for environmental protestors.
True that. Far right politics 101: always demonise the (imaginary) external enemy threatening our aspirational future, ie the politics of exclusion and envy.
Funny when people dont want to hear opposing views to their own or even worst when some think views they dont agree with should be silenced.
Ive never had that attitude im a believer in. the old " I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Covid was a great example of this, that whole Covid thread was annoying but i still thought it was important people had their say and it not be shut down, difference of opinion is always important.
BTW. In regard to protesters while protest arent my thing im 100% fine with protest that are legal and dont disadvantage people, but just because you have a different view and THINK you are right, doesn't mean you have the right to break the law and disadvantage or piss off private citizens or business big or small, especially when you go out of your way to do silly stunts like glue yourself to pavements, chain yourself to bridges or tree's or mining equipment or even worse break into someones business like those animal rights protestors who raid peoples farms vandalizing and stealing livestock.
Oh and lets not forgot looting shops or burning down buildings and smashing shit up in the name of protest too, your views on anything dont justify that shit, the law should come down hard on them especially in repeat offenders.
I personally don’t want you silenced @info because Im a firm believer in what Mark Twain said “ — 'It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”. Think about it
Indo what about strikes as a form of protest?
Another Twain quote:"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you."
Anyway happy Friday night...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-28/fact-check-tony-abbott-niaa-voice.... Tony Abbott says the NIAA disburses $30b a year on Indigenous programs. Is that correct?
Indo, using your logic the suffragettes wouldn't have won the vote, the U.S. might still have slaves, Ghandi would have failed in his bid for Indian independence etc etc.
I mean the examples are endless.
Sorry mate, you need to accept that non-violent protest is part of living in a healthy democracy.
That is, unless you don't like a healthy democracy?
Maybe you like the fact that "the CIVICUS Monitor downgraded Australia’s civic space rating from ‘open’ to ‘narrowed’ following a deterioration in fundamental freedoms due to concerns around freedom of the press, the targeting of whistle-blowers, anti-protest laws and increased surveillance"?
Indo imagine the world if everyone had a viewpoint like yours, where there was zero tolerance of non-violent protest and official power was used to subdue protestors?
I recommend that you have a quick read about authoritarianism and fascism.
https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/arrest-climate-protesters-increasing...
‘It’s just craziness’ ;)
Protest isn't protest unless it disrupts...
Supafreak wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-28/fact-check-tony-abbott-niaa-voice.... Tony Abbott says the NIAA disburses $30b a year on Indigenous programs. Is that correct?
How can you tell if Tony Abbott is lying?
His lips are moving....
Food for thought Indo.
"In a 1961 Gallup poll, 61% of respondents disapproved of the Freedom Riders who rode integrated buses into the South. A similar percentage condemned the sit-ins at lunch counters. Three years later, 74% said, in an echo of Lincoln, that “mass demonstrations by Negroes are more likely to hurt the Negro’s cause for racial equality.”
Such attitudes inspired Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” which brilliantly skewered “the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice.” King later dismissed warnings about alienating “white middle-class support” by saying, “I don’t think that a person who is truly committed is ever alienated completely by tactics.” Ultimately, “I don’t think in a social revolution you can always retain support of the moderates.”
Like the enslaved people who sabotaged the Confederate war effort, Black activists of the 1960s faced opposition or ambivalence from the majority. They succeeded because they imposed massive and sustained economic costs on the Southern elite, through boycotts, sit-ins, and other means. Thus it was the White business owners in places such as Birmingham who capitulated first, and who directed the rest of the White power structure—police, mayors, legislators, and so on—to allow desegregation.
Another major progressive victory of that era, the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, came about for similar reasons. Public opinion and Congress were peripheral to the war’s end. Far more important was the unabating Vietnamese resistance, most notably the January 1968 Tet Offensive against the U.S. occupation and client regime in South Vietnam.
Tet catalyzed two decisive shifts. One was among U.S. business leaders, who concluded that the war was a drag on their profits. Lyndon Johnson’s March 1968 decision to de-escalate the war came five days after he met with his “Wise Men,” a group of top business leaders and former government officials. Insider accounts report that Johnson was “deeply shaken” by the meeting and left with “no doubt that a large majority” of the Wise Men “felt the present policy was at a dead end.”
Tet also accelerated the rebellion among U.S. soldiers. The people needed to fight the war increasingly disobeyed, deserted, declined to enlist or reenlist, and even killed the commanding officers who sent them on death missions. By 1971 military leaders warned of “a personnel crisis that borders on disaster,” and actually demanded that Nixon speed up the withdrawal."
History shows that sustained disruptive protests work.
https://www.yesmagazine.org/opinion/2020/07/08/history-protests-social-c...
@Andy
We are going off topic, but the reality is in this day and age in a democratic country in 99% of case's there is no reason to have protest that break the law and disadvantage and piss off people and when protester's do, it almost always does more damage to their cause.
Of all recent protest seen that technically broke laws, the freedom protestors have the best argument for doing so as their legal right to protest was often taken away.
These people were the also the worst treated of any protester's in Australia that i can recall, in Victoria you had people arrested for facebook post that encouraged protest, and in Victoria you had tear gas, rubber bullets and stinger grenades used on protesters.
That shit even for me is really over the top, i just want police to move in and remove illegal protesters as quickly as possible and then give repeat offenders proper penalties.
I want to see people that glue themselves to structures left there while everybody else heads off to the pub.
“ the reality is in this day and age in a democratic country in 99% of case's there is no reason to have protest that break the law and disadvantage and piss off people”
You’re pulling that 99% out of your arse to suit your prejudices.
Logging, CSG, climate change?
What about Covid lockdowns?
I think, as we descend into a human caused climate apocalypse, protesters will be seen as being on the right side of history. We, the people who sniff with annoyance at brief moments of trivial inconvenience and then drive on, will be considered loathsome and contemptible murdering fools.
On the subject of The Voice, I’ve just been in the Kimberley and have seen photos of groups of aborigines rounded up, chained around the neck and marched hundreds of miles to provide the labour for work camps. Yet, the proposal of having a small, powerless advisory committee on aboriginal issues is giving some people the vapours. It seems a failure of rational thinking, or something nastier.
AndyM wrote:“ the reality is in this day and age in a democratic country in 99% of case's there is no reason to have protest that break the law and disadvantage and piss off people”
You’re pulling that 99% out of your arse to suit your prejudices.
Logging, CSG, climate change?
What about Covid lockdowns?
Okay the stat was more just making a point, the point being is its so rare for people to have any need to protest illegally.
Like i said the Covid protest were a very very rare exception, because to protest in public you had to break the law.
In this day and age can you think of any other protest where illegal protest can be somehow justified?
When i say that, i mean not just your opinion that the cause/view justified breaking the law, but that there was no alternative to protesting in a legal manner.
Im going to be very surprised if you can come up with another outside of Covid.
BTW. talking Australia here in recent day and age.
zenagain wrote:I want to see people that glue themselves to structures left there while everybody else heads off to the pub.
Yeah, like the ones in the Porsche museum. Soo good, I’ve got no sympathy for these guys.
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/genius-activists-glue-themselves-t...
zenagain wrote:I want to see people that glue themselves to structures left there while everybody else heads off to the pub.
100% I think the approach in some cases should just to put a barricade up around them and let them be, even a barricade that hide's them, and if they remove it, extra charges faced.
I also think private citizens and companies need a right within the law to use a degree of physical force to remove people when justfied.
Like this video below.
Currently id expect people like those in this video could be at risk of assault or something, but we need laws and rights that allow this to prevent this type of thing.
Yeah sure let it go to court after, where the judge can decide if there was too much force used, like i get you cant just beat people up who are blocking the road, but you should be allowed to use necessary force needed like in the vid.
“ is its so rare for people to have any need to protest illegally.”
Sure.
Apart from all those times when it was necessary.
And successful.
And it changed the world as we know it.
The right to peaceful protest is an integral part of a liberal democracy full stop. Any discussion beyond that is claptrap.
Although I can imagine Indo out at Bentley, physically restraining and removing the knitting Nannas.
Just reflecting on the legislative actions of the current far right government of Israel that is designed to override court rulings as a consequence of government not abiding by the principles and pillars of liberal democracy. It’s a slippery slope some wish for. Another example would be what is happening in the US courts.
Exactly Guy. It’s all fun and games until your government starts legislating spying on its citizens.
Protest early I say.
https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/04/federal-police-ra...
AndyM wrote:“ is its so rare for people to have any need to protest illegally.”
Sure.
Apart from all those times when it was necessary.
And successful.
And it changed the world as we know it.
I didnt think you could come up with an example outside of Covid.
indo-dreaming wrote:AndyM wrote:“ is its so rare for people to have any need to protest illegally.”
Sure.
Apart from all those times when it was necessary.
And successful.
And it changed the world as we know it.I didnt think you could come up with an example outside of Covid.
Destruction of habitat and environment???
indo-dreaming wrote:AndyM wrote:“ is its so rare for people to have any need to protest illegally.”
Sure.
Apart from all those times when it was necessary.
And successful.
And it changed the world as we know it.I didnt think you could come up with an example outside of Covid.
Keeping with the theme of this thread, BLM??
The “illegal” blockade of the Gordon below Franklin dam site in Tasmania was a game changer.
indo-dreaming wrote:AndyM wrote:“ is its so rare for people to have any need to protest illegally.”
Sure.
Apart from all those times when it was necessary.
And successful.
And it changed the world as we know it.I didnt think you could come up with an example outside of Covid.
I gave you a few further up the page you dolt.
Whats stopping people legally protesting about those issues???
Someone's belief in the importance of an issue doesn't justify breaking the law, no matter if its a an environmental protestor that thinks they are saving the world, or some Christian anti abortion protestor that thinks they are saving human life's.
They all have the right to protest peacefully and legally, but not the right to break the law.
andy-mac wrote:Supafreak wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-28/fact-check-tony-abbott-niaa-voice.... Tony Abbott says the NIAA disburses $30b a year on Indigenous programs. Is that correct?
How can you tell if Tony Abbott is lying?
His lips are moving....
You’re on the money andy- mac , the advisor to Advance even admits it , so what’s he advising ? https://amp.smh.com.au/national/read-my-lying-lips-abbott-admits-you-can...
Supafreak wrote:andy-mac wrote:Supafreak wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-28/fact-check-tony-abbott-niaa-voice.... Tony Abbott says the NIAA disburses $30b a year on Indigenous programs. Is that correct?
How can you tell if Tony Abbott is lying?
His lips are moving....You’re on the money andy- mac , the advisor to Advance even admits it , so what’s he advising ? https://amp.smh.com.au/national/read-my-lying-lips-abbott-admits-you-can...
The unflushable turd.
indo-dreaming wrote:Whats stopping people legally protesting about those issues???
Someone's belief in the importance of an issue doesn't justify breaking the law, no matter if its a an environmental protestor that thinks they are saving the world, or some Christian anti abortion protestor that thinks they are saving human life's.
They all have the right to protest peacefully and legally, but not the right to break the law.
Great in theory, not so in reality where they (governments) can make laws outlawing protest....
Indo you can’t possibly be so ignorant of history, surely it’s not possible.
andy-mac wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Whats stopping people legally protesting about those issues???
Someone's belief in the importance of an issue doesn't justify breaking the law, no matter if its a an environmental protestor that thinks they are saving the world, or some Christian anti abortion protestor that thinks they are saving human life's.
They all have the right to protest peacefully and legally, but not the right to break the law.
Great in theory, not so in reality where they (governments) can make laws outlawing protest....
There is no laws outlawing peaceful legal protest in Australia, there is only laws that protect people and business from being harassed and bullied by protest groups. (like more recent SA laws)
Those groups are still free to protest in a legal manner, but protesting doesn't give you the right to harass and bully others and infringe on others basic rights and freedoms
Again to help you understand this in a way you might understand,
Lets take a conservative Christian group, that wants to protest against say abortion clinic or a brothel or drug injecting rooms.
Im sure you would agree they shouldn't have the right to blockade a business and harass even get in the faces of employees and customer's coming and going, and definitely dont have the right to drape their banners all over the building's or chain themselves to the roof or something.
Well its no different to any other protest, be it some crazy vegans that think they can bully some restaurant or the offices of some mining company.
AndyM wrote:Indo you can’t possibly be so ignorant of history, surely it’s not possible.
Surely you cant be so ignorant to not understand the difference between times and countries where people have/had no choice to illegally protest, to the situation we now live in where we all have the right to peacefully protest in a legal manner.
indo-dreaming wrote:AndyM wrote:Indo you can’t possibly be so ignorant of history, surely it’s not possible.
Surely you cant be so ignorant to not understand the difference between times and countries where people have/had no choice to illegally protest, to the situation we now live in where we all have the right to peacefully protest in a legal manner.
No, what you are suggesting is the illusion of protest, something that will never effect real change. Quite different to civil disobedience protests I would think in outcomes.
indo-dreaming wrote:AndyM wrote:Indo you can’t possibly be so ignorant of history, surely it’s not possible.
Surely you cant be so ignorant to not understand the difference between times and countries where people have/had no choice to illegally protest, to the situation we now live in where we all have the right to peacefully protest in a legal manner.
No, what you are suggesting is the illusion of protest, something that will never effect real change. Quite different to civil disobedience protests I would think in outcomes.
indo-dreaming wrote:AndyM wrote:Indo you can’t possibly be so ignorant of history, surely it’s not possible.
Surely you cant be so ignorant to not understand the difference between times and countries where people have/had no choice to illegally protest, to the situation we now live in where we all have the right to peacefully protest in a legal manner.
What "times"? It's a continuum - it is still absolutely necessary to protest, legal or not.
You do realise that issues such as old growth logging, CSG mining, climate change, Covid etc etc are all here and now.
We haven't reached some idyllic democracy where everything is all sweet, in fact we are losing aspects of our democracy, for example where governments make laws in favour of their benefactors and in favour of repression.
You're way out of touch Indo and grossly ignorant.
Ha ha and you have the cull to call me ignorant.
All around the world laws and political situation's change, in the past and still in many countries people dont have the right to protest legally, so have no choice, but here is Australia we have a legal right to peaceful protest, so we dont have any excuse to break the law or bully and intimidate people or business we dont agree with.
It's honestly scary that actual grown adults think like you guys, its a mindset of an ignorant idealistic teen, if everyone thought like you guys the world would be chaos and the violence that would be incited would be crazy.
"the cull"? rad...
ha ha Gall not Cull, blame it on needing glasses.
And none of the environmental battles fought in Australia in the past 40 odd years would have been won.
If you think asking nicely is going to influence a corporatocracy like we have in Australia, well you're in a sad state of affairs.
Then again, you are the person who thinks the closer Indigenous people are to their culture, the more violent they are, so what do I expect?
What do they say about arguing with pigs?
"pigs"? sick...
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